Thanks for the clarification. I support adoption. David
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:28 AM Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > >> >
