Hi Martin, On Thu, Mar 27, 2025, at 00:17, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025, at 09:44, Kazuho Oku wrote: > > I do not think we can agree on a single API that defines how > > applications and QUIC stacks should communicate, nor would it be a good > > idea to do so. > > I completely agree. Though with things like DATAGRAM, RESET_STREAM_AT and > some of the discussion about how webtransport might implement another layer > of flow control, there are still some open questions about how the general > shape of the interface might change over time. I don't know if that is what > Alan was getting at, but it seems like there is at least some work to be done > there, if only to evolve > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000#name-operations-on-streams
Do you have any opinion on whether the evolution of the text in RFC 9000 would best be done in the form of a 9000bis, or as text in a new document (that updates RFC 9000), or some other approach? >
