I support adoption.
-- Christian Huitema
On 11/12/2021 10:44 AM, David Schinazi wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. I support adoption.
David
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:28 AM Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi David,
Good question. This call only applies to the scope of the existing
document, i.e. an "identical" version to v1 (where that definition may
change slightly but will not grow beyond something reasonable) for the
purposes of exercising having multiple defined versions of QUIC.
Thanks,
Matt Joras
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:51 AM David Schinazi <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Matt,
Clarifying question: what does this adoption call entail?
Does it mean that we decide that QUICv2 has the narrow
scope of the current individual draft, or does it only mean
that the WG wants to work on QUICv2 and that the scope
will be decided later?
Thanks,
David
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:28 AM Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
As discussed at the WG meeting, this draft[1] provides an "identical"
version of QUIC under a new version alias. The chairs believe it is an
opportune time to propose adoption, and this email serves as that
call. We believe this to be useful work for the working group to take
on, especially in the context of the already-adopted and ongoing
version negotiation work[2]. Please reply to this email with any
comments. The call will run through November 19th.
Thanks,
Matt & Lucas
QUIC Chairs
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duke-quic-v2/
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation/
