Closed jan-ivar closed 2 months ago
Meeting:
Meeting:
Meeting:
Could we call this "applicationProtocol"? This avoids overloading the multiple references to internet protocols (UDP, QUIC, WebTransport) and instead refers to the protocol we wish to describe, which is defined completely by the application using the WebTransport connection.
Meeting:
IETF preferred "protocol" by overwhelming margin in a poll (19 protocol, 3 subprotocol, 9 applicationLevelProtocol)
Note https://github.com/ietf-wg-webtrans/draft-ietf-webtrans-overview/issues/15#issuecomment-2299876480, calling for harmonization around the use of "protocol".
The API is now "protocol" throughout, except prose still uses "subprotocol" to disambiguate it from its own § 3. Protocol concepts (HTTP3 does a similar thing).
s/subprotocol/protocol/ for variable names
Fixes #536. Right now this seems only defined for HTTP/3, so that's what I went with. Is this what we want?
Preview | Diff