Re: Identifying our deliverables

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

I echo Ian's thoughts, "HTTP over QUIC" doesn't work well as a term in
practice.

I support this change, using an incremental number is logical, and is
compatible with the ecosystem that expects an HTTP version number.



On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, 13:56 Ian Swett, <ianswett=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> From a completely practical perspective, I support this because I can't
> tell you how many times I've had to explain the difference between the HTTP
> over QUIC mapping and QUIC the transport.
>
> And moving the HTTP over QUIC and QPACK documents to the HTTP working
> group seems like the right thing to do.
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:21 AM Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:30:55AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> > To address this, I'd like to suggest that -- after coordination with
>> the HTTP
>> > WG -- we rename our the HTTP document to "HTTP/3", and using the final
>> ALPN
>> > token "h3". Doing so clearly identifies it as another binding of HTTP
>> > semantics to the wire protocol -- just as HTTP/2 did -- so people
>> understand
>> > its separation from QUIC.
>>
>> FWIW I always thought that HTTP/3 should be its final naming -- just like
>> SPDY
>> became HTTP/2 -- for various reasons, one of them being encouraging
>> adoption
>> by the protocol being presented as the natural upgrade to the previous
>> ones
>> and not a competitor that's been there for some time and suddenly comes as
>> an RFC.
>>
>> H1 with 723x, then H2 with 754x have shown that it's not a problem to
>> cover
>> multiple areas with a common name and that the protocol itself is in fact
>> a
>> family of protocols and mechanisms. So QPACK will naturally fall under H3
>> just like HPACK naturally belongs to H2.
>>
>> Just my two cents,
>> Willy
>>
>>