On Thu, May 11, 2023, at 19:44, Giuseppe Fioccola wrote: > I think your concerns about QUIC are reasonable, but they can be taken > into account only for the specific application to QUIC, that would > eventually be defined in a separate draft.
I think that Lucas' point is that the draft describes something that isn't likely to ever be feasible. At a minimum, the draft should be clear about the conditions that would be necessary to realize this goal. From what I can see, the conditions involve deploying a new version of QUIC that completely displaces the existing version of QUIC, which - if not completely impossible - is at least highly improbable.
