3 ms·
>However, in those discussions, a related concern was identified; confusion between QUIC-the-transport-protocol, and QUIC-the-HTTP-binding. I and others have se
by dharmab 8y ago
>However, in those discussions, a related concern was identified; confusion between QUIC-the-transport-protocol, and QUIC-the-HTTP-binding. I and others have seen a number of folks not closely involved in this work conflating the two, even though they're now separate things.
>
>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.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/RLRs4nB1lwFCZ_7k0iuz0ZBa35s https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/RLRs4nB1lwFCZ_7k0...
TL;DR the rename is to resolve the confusion.
- popee 8y agoAha, thanks for clearing that up
- yy77 8y agowhy not just http/quic? using 3 seems strongly suggest that it is the next generation of http. They knew that but pretend it is not relavent.
- dharmab 8y agoBecause there's a decent chance that it will be the next generation of HTTP. If it doesn't pan out they'll just move on. Remember IPv5?