Hello Martin, As someone who had seen a lot of misinformation spread about HTTP/2 and actively tried to prevent the same happening for HTTP/3 and QUIC by providing "correct" sources early on, I can sadly only agree with Lucas here.
There will always be people who don't do any of the legwork required to actually understand what's happening and who take things at face value. This is why even today we have articles claiming HTTP/3 doesn't retransmit lost data because it uses UDP under the hood... Switching to another naming scheme just to appease this group would probably not have the intended effect + make it more obtuse for the rest in the long run. So I'd personally also advocate just calling it 2QUIC2Soon. With best regards, Robin On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 16:06, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 version 1 is outdated, use version 2", and so on.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/ > > > >> -- dr. Robin Marx Postdoc researcher - Web protocols Expertise centre for Digital Media *Cellphone *+32(0)497 72 86 94 www.uhasselt.be Universiteit Hasselt - Campus Diepenbeek Agoralaan Gebouw D - B-3590 Diepenbeek Kantoor EDM-2.05
