Hi Behcet, As far as we know, we're interoperating really well with other implementations. For example, Cloudflare and Facebook have let us know that they're seeing production levels of h3-29 traffic from Chrome and it's working.
David On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:03 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:40 PM David Schinazi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> To follow up on my previous email, I just wanted to let everyone >> know that we've now ramped up h3-29 to over 90% of Chrome >> users. (We always keep a few percent of users running other >> versions of QUIC or TCP to compare performance.) >> >> > Good. So no interoperability issues? > Maybe because both receiver and sender software from the same manufacturer? > > Behcet > >> Cheers, >> David >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:49 AM David Schinazi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi QUIC WG, >>> >>> We would like to share an important announcement from Chrome: >>> >>> https://blog.chromium.org/2020/10/chrome-is-deploying-http3-and-ietf-quic.html >>> >>> In particular, we'd like to highlight two points of interest to the WG: >>> >>> 1) Chrome now supports IETF QUIC by default (h3-29). >>> >>> 2) Since the subsequent IETF drafts 30 and 31 do not have >>> compatibility-breaking >>> changes, we currently are not planning to change the over-the-wire >>> identifier. What >>> this means is that while we'll keep tracking changes in the IETF >>> specification, we >>> will be deploying them under the h3-29/0xff00001d name. We therefore >>> recommend >>> that servers keep support for h3-29 until the final RFCs are complete if >>> they wish to >>> interoperate with Chrome. However, if the IETF were to make >>> compatibility-breaking >>> changes in a future draft, Chrome will revisit this decision. >>> >>> Full details in the link above. >>> >>> Cheers >>> David >>> >>
