Re: QUIC(ker)

>Notes from the Summit:
>WEBTRANS would also be of interest, but "raw" QUIC has some advantages as
>well, so we probably want both with a uniform approach.

I think we have, with "WebTransport" a real opportunity to specify a proper 
XMPP-native transport mechanism (no extra framing or use case specific hacks 
like WebSocket or BOSH, full normal TLS support possible when implemented in 
a normal client, etc) that happens to also work from browsers (and other 
things like transit through HTTP proxies and HTTP reverse proxies... at 
least if they support http3 smelling things).

I'm not sure what the "raw" QUIC advantages could be, but I would be 
strongly in favour of making this a special case MAY with WebTransport 
handshake support as at least a SHOULD level thing.

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=W+Yp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----