[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-wget] About GSoC project: Support QUIC Protocol

From: Jay Bhavsar
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] About GSoC project: Support QUIC Protocol
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 22:59:46 +0000

Hi Daniel.

Thanks for the quick reply.
>But you should of course base any QUIC work for wget on a QUIC library.

So I'm browsing the libraries. And ngtcp2 seems interesting. Can we use it
in wget2? I'm also considering other options. Any suggestions on picking a
perticular library?

On Fri 9 Mar, 2018, 3:51 AM Daniel Stenberg, <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Jay Bhavsar wrote:
> > I am considering to apply for "Support QUIC Protocol". I have read this
> > <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WJvyZflAO2pq77yOLbp9NsGjC1CHetAXV8I0fQe-B_U/edit
> >
> > specification, and understood most of it.
> Hi Jay,
> The QUIC protocol of the future is the one that is being standardized by
> the
> IETF *right now* and is planned to get done by the end of this year. Adding
> support for Google's old (current) version of QUIC has much less value for
> the
> future (in my opinion).
> The current working drafts for the protocol are here:
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/
> But you should of course base any QUIC work for wget on a QUIC library.
> You'll
> find existing implementations listed here:
>   https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/wiki/Implementations
> > I think all the requests should use TCP by default unless explicitly told
> > to use QUIC by some flag. If we get  "Alternate-Protocol: 123:quic"
> The Alt-Svc header tells the client that the service exists somewhere else,
> possibly using another protocol (like HTTP-over-quic, hq), so yes.
> > in response header we should inform the user, close TCP connection and
> use
> > QUIC instead.
> *Ideally* you'd try to setup the QUIC connection in the background or in
> parallel since it may not work and then it is a good idea to keep using the
> initial TCP connection...
> > It isn't specified formally on wiki page, but I think we should be able
> to
> > communicate with HTTP using QUIC protocol. Is there something more to it?
> You might learn that the implementations are not yet 100% there, so
> speaking
> full HTTP over QUIC is a bit shaky but should be in a better shape by the
> summer. (Most implementations so far have stuck to "HTTP/0.9" over QUIC for
> simplicity and early interop, but this situation will of course not last.)
> --
>   / daniel.haxx.se

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]