On 11/17/2022 4:15 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
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?
The way I read it, QUIC-V2 makes a reference to QUIC-VN, which is
documented in the reference section as pointing to
draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-13. But I fully expect that the next
QUIC-V2 draft will refer to the updated version of QUIC-VN, and thus to
the final transport parameter.
-- Christian Huitema
