Hi David, Good question. This call only applies to the scope of the existing document, i.e. an "identical" version to v1 (where that definition may change slightly but will not grow beyond something reasonable) for the purposes of exercising having multiple defined versions of QUIC.
Thanks, Matt Joras On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:51 AM David Schinazi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > Clarifying question: what does this adoption call entail? > Does it mean that we decide that QUICv2 has the narrow > scope of the current individual draft, or does it only mean > that the WG wants to work on QUICv2 and that the scope > will be decided later? > > Thanks, > David > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:28 AM Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> As discussed at the WG meeting, this draft[1] provides an "identical" >> version of QUIC under a new version alias. The chairs believe it is an >> opportune time to propose adoption, and this email serves as that >> call. We believe this to be useful work for the working group to take >> on, especially in the context of the already-adopted and ongoing >> version negotiation work[2]. Please reply to this email with any >> comments. The call will run through November 19th. >> >> Thanks, >> Matt & Lucas >> QUIC Chairs >> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duke-quic-v2/ >> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation/ >>
