It was an interesting discussion last week about QMux and how to position it clearly through naming.
To move forward, it would be useful to describe exactly what the "threat model" is that we are worried about. Is a server operator going to use QMux over TCP instead of full QUIC? IMO that isn't responsive to the costs that are actually deterring QUIC deployments, but I am happy to defer to those closest to customers. Is it that operators who currently block UDP will feel "less bad" about doing so and feel less pressure to change? If so, that would be a sad outcome. I would like to see this work move forward, and hope we can be more systematic about these concerns so they can be addressed properly. Martin
