Re: [openc2-imple] QuicTransport

QUIC is not tightly bound to HTTP, it is a replacement for TCP.Â I was in the working group meeting when the HTTP-biz working group decided to name HTTP over QUIC as HTTP/3.Â Much to the dismay of EKR. You can go back and watch the youtube recording of me at the mic arguingÂwith EKR over this.

Whether we like it or not, QUIC is the future, unless China gets its way with New-IP.Â

Thanks,

Bret

PGP Fingerprint:Â63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 ÂF2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:49 AM Lemire, Dave (HII-TSD) <david.lemire@hii-tsd.com> wrote:

Stumbled across this while looking at news today:

Experimenting with QuicTransport

QuicTransport is a new API offering low-latency, bidirectional, client-server messaging. Learn more about its use cases, and how to give feedback about the future of the implementation.

https://web.dev/quictransport/

There's a brief FAQ in the article that compares QuicTransport to Websockets.ÂÂ

I recall at a recent meeting that John-Mark Gurney advised that QUIC is so tightly bound to HTTP/3 that it isn't a good candidate for OpenC2 message transfer. I don't know whether QuicTransport is a better fit, or whether we should look seriously at websockets, but thought this info might be interesting/useful to IC-SC members.

Dave

David Lemire

Systems Engineer

HII Mission Driven Innovated Solutions (HII-MDIS)

Technical Solutions Division

302 Sentinel Drive | Annapolis Junction, MD 20701

Work (301)Â575-5190 | MobileÂ(443)Â535-1182

openc2-imple message