Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define "httpq" (#348)

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:12:34 -0800

Closes #253.  I think there's value in having a way to specify a QUIC-only (or QUIC-first, though less so) endpoint for the reasons described in the issue.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/348

-- Commit Summary --

  * Adding httpq://
  * IANA for httpq
  * Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into httpq
  * Merge branch 'httpq' of https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts into httpq

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-http.md (52)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/348.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/348.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/348

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:04:59 -0800

Yes, needs lots of discussion (though we've been reserving that label to mean that it needs discussion at the next meeting, so it might be premature to label it now).  I don't see any way in which this could be deployed, at least in browsers.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/348#issuecomment-282604879

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:57:36 -0800

I don't see any way in which this could be deployed to the WWW in any reasonable timescale -- which is not the same as saying it wouldn't work in a browser.  A browser accessing a dedicated service which runs over QUIC seems very feasible.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/348#issuecomment-282634922