How many people have shipped version negotiation and v2 already?

I assume that implementations are using the codepoints for the transport 
parameter in the draft (0xFF73DB), but the drafts says this:

> When this document is approved, it will request permanent allocation of a 
> codepoint in the 0-63 range to replace the provisional codepoint described 
> above.

IANA are about to make that new allocation, but that might not do good things 
for interoperability.

We're not changing the v2 version number and v2 *requires* the use of this 
transport parameter: 
https://quicwg.org/quic-v2/draft-ietf-quic-v2.html#section-4-2

Consequently, an implementation that uses the current transport parameter 
codepoint will not interoperate successfully with an implementation that uses 
any new transport parameter codepoint.

So, we either allocate a new codepoint for both, or we keep the existing ones.  
Which do people prefer?

Or, am I wrong about this?

Reply via email to