Wow, just reading this RFC makes my more comfortable compare to reading RFC7540. Possibly because they hided a huge portion of technical details under the keywo

Wow, just reading this RFC makes my more comfortable compare to reading RFC7540. Possibly because they hided a huge portion of technical details under the keyword QUIC. I'm not sure I should continue to implement my HTTP/2 server now, as HTTP/3 will overlay almost (as far as I can tell) all the benefit that provided by HTTP/2. One thing makes me confused though, since: > The QUIC version being used MUST use TLS version 1.3 or greater as its handshake protocol. And most TLS 1.3 implementation supports RFC6066, then why: > .... This may be done using the Server Name Indication (SNI) [RFC6066] extension to TLS <bold>or using some other mechanism</bold>. ? I mean, why include any other mechanism while SNI can do the job?