Hi Martins, Wearing no hats.
On Sat, 22 Jan 2022, 02:05 Martin J. Dürst, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everybody, > > The following concern just popped up in my mind: > > Some people (in particular the press,...) may take version numbers very > seriously. Reading "QUIC version 2", my guess is that there might be > articles saying things such as "Quic already is at version 2" or "Quic > version 1 is outdated, use version 2", and so on. > > Everybody on this list (including me) of course understands that such > stuff is completely wrong, and it's easy for people who want to figure > out that it's wrong. Nevertheless, there are quite a few instances where > version numbers have taken a life of their own. > > The purpose of this mail is that everybody consider the risk of the > above "misunderstandings". If we are fine with that risk, then let's go > with "version 2". If we have some doubts, it would be easy to change the > version number to something else, such as 1.1, or 0.99, or A.bc, or > whatever. > Whatever moniker we chose, I think there will be some part of the population that will be surprised and read something more into it than what the specification is attempting to do or solve. Personally I think QUIC 1.1 would be a very bad name though. I've lost count of the times I've seen a comment like "I've only just heard about HTTP/2, and now there is an HTTP/3?". This spec will help exercise our version negotiation mechanism and help prevent stagnation and ossification. In some sense we are trying to build an evergreen transport, to borrow a w3c term [1]. Perhaps people should become accustomed to a new version of QUIC being released on a regular cycle, so that implementer and operators build out the processes needed to stay compatible and up-to-date. Cheers Lucas [1] - https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/evergreen-web/ >
