I misremembered the previous discussion; it was on the list, not on Slack, so it's archived. It starts here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/AQM3or1TNnInYhWe8UEx5B6nrgw/ I believe the conclusion was that we would use 0x00000001/h3 as soon as QUIC RFCs shipped, before H3 RFCs shipped. On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 7:22 AM David Schinazi <[email protected]> wrote: > Google's implementation uses a 1:1 mapping between > an h3 ALPN and a QUIC version. Because of this, when > we ship QUIC 0x00000001, it'll be with ALPN=h3. > > Our code supports v1/h3 already, but v1/h3 is disabled by default. > We'd like to align with everyone to pick a date when we start > enabling v1/h3 in production though. > > From the conversations I've had, I think everyone agrees that > when draft-ietf-quic-http ships as RFC, everyone will be allowed > to ship v1/h3. I think everyone also agrees that we shouldn't do > that before draft-ietf-quic-transport ships as RFC. > > The open question is: do we wait for draft-ietf-quic-http or do we > move forward when draft-ietf-quic-transport ships? > > David > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 4:04 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> QUIC, sorry the confusion. The original message in this thread included >> HTTPbis, and you should reply to that one to keep everyone in the loop. >> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Damn it, wrong http >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:40 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In the quicdev slack channel today, we realized that we had a >>>> disconnect on what ALPN to use in the interval between the QUIC RFCs >>>> publishing and the HTTP/3 RFCs being ready (due to a MISREF with >>>> http-semantics, etc). >>>> >>>> It's lost in the slack archives now, but I *think* we had concluded >>>> that once the QUIC RFCs ship the endpoints should use 0x00000001/h3, not >>>> h3-29 or h3-32, because the chance of something in http-semantics breaking >>>> interoperability was nil. I personally don't really care how we converge, >>>> as long as we converge. >>>> >>>> To summarize the choices, in the ~months between the RFCs, are >>>> endpoints doing a QUIC version + ALPN of >>>> 1) 0x00000001/h3 or >>>> 2) 0x00000001/h3-xx >>>> >>>> Can we come to an agreement on this point? >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>
