MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <578BB4EC-421E-4B21-AA14-B545A41754C8@mnot.net>
 <20181030052133.GA29963@1wt.eu>
 <CAKcm_gNbQyvAOVsg7wCj+M83Thsj+=KJD0QGLcq42-RAwhTf=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gNbQyvAOVsg7wCj+M83Thsj+=KJD0QGLcq42-RAwhTf=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:25:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZSj0GSa=3EVFt27=DLahqJj+qS0nUSfqFNf+NWnEbsLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Identifying our deliverables
To: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>,
 IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000012db31057972f68f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/tsEMTMNVIlKcLGvrXOP5gpLoxNU>
Precedence: list

--00000000000012db31057972f68f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
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 <w@1wt.eu> 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
>>
>>

--00000000000012db31057972f68f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto">I echo Ian&#39;s thoughts,=C2=A0<span s=
tyle=3D"font-family:sans-serif">&quot;HTTP over QUIC&quot; doesn&#39;t work=
 well as a term in practice.=C2=A0</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
I support this change, using an incremental number is logical, and is compa=
tible with the ecosystem that expects an HTTP version number.=C2=A0<div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, 13:56 Ian Swett, &lt;ianswe=
tt=3D<a href=3D"mailto:40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org">40google.com@dmarc.ietf=
.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr=
">From a completely practical perspective, I support this because I can&#39=
;t tell you how many times I&#39;ve had to explain the difference between t=
he HTTP over QUIC mapping and QUIC the transport.<div><br></div><div>And mo=
ving the HTTP over QUIC and QPACK documents to the HTTP working group seems=
 like the right thing to do.</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div=
 dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:21 AM Willy Tarreau &lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:w@1wt.eu" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">w@1wt.eu</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:30:55A=
M +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:<br>
&gt; To address this, I&#39;d like to suggest that -- after coordination wi=
th the HTTP<br>
&gt; WG -- we rename our the HTTP document to &quot;HTTP/3&quot;, and using=
 the final ALPN<br>
&gt; token &quot;h3&quot;. Doing so clearly identifies it as another bindin=
g of HTTP<br>
&gt; semantics to the wire protocol -- just as HTTP/2 did -- so people unde=
rstand<br>
&gt; its separation from QUIC.<br>
<br>
FWIW I always thought that HTTP/3 should be its final naming -- just like S=
PDY<br>
became HTTP/2 -- for various reasons, one of them being encouraging adoptio=
n<br>
by the protocol being presented as the natural upgrade to the previous ones=
<br>
and not a competitor that&#39;s been there for some time and suddenly comes=
 as<br>
an RFC.<br>
<br>
H1 with 723x, then H2 with 754x have shown that it&#39;s not a problem to c=
over<br>
multiple areas with a common name and that the protocol itself is in fact a=
<br>
family of protocols and mechanisms. So QPACK will naturally fall under H3<b=
r>
just like HPACK naturally belongs to H2.<br>
<br>
Just my two cents,<br>
Willy<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000012db31057972f68f--