Subprotocol negotiation

[nidhijaju]

ietf-wg-webtrans/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3#144 added subprotocol negotiation to the HTTP/3 document, but it would be good to specify this for other protocols as well. ietf-wg-webtrans/draft-ietf-webtrans-http2#108 was opened for HTTP/2 as well.

It would be good to add it to the overview doc as well to be able to refer from the W3C spec (context: w3c/webtransport#598 (comment)), as the mechanism probably shouldn't be limited to HTTP/3.

[wilaw]

@aboba - this issue is blocking a PR at w3c/webtransport#598. Can an editor be assigned for a PR for tjhis issue so that we can move forward on the W3C side?

[DavidSchinazi]

Would anyone like to volunteer to write a PR here? We do welcome contributions from outside the editor team as well. If not, we'll ask editors at our next editor's call.

[DavidSchinazi]

Chair: discussed at IETF 120. There was a discussion about renaming from WebTransport-SubProtocol to WebTransport-Protocol. There's wasn't clear consensus on the rename but there weren't strong opinions either. Everyone agreed that we should have the same name in W3C/overview/h2/h3 though

[jan-ivar]

The poll results I recall were 19 for protocol, 3 for subprotocol, and 9 for applicationLevelProtocol.

[DavidSchinazi]

Note that ietf-wg-webtrans/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3#162 renamed SubProtocol to Protocol in WebTransport over h3. Unless someone objects strongly, let's go with that bikeshed color for all the drafts