On 2022-1-22, at 17:05, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
"QUIC Version 1 Alternate"? Lars
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
