On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 6:06 PM James Graham <ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/11/2020 16:09, Dragana Damjanovic wrote: > > > Our implementation is ready for testing. > > What's the interop testing story for HTTP/3? How confident are we that > we won't run into implementation differences that look like web-compat > issues? > The interop tests look good. They are regularly run: https://interop.seemann.io/ (some of these tests failed but there are different reasons for that, not interoperability.) Performance tests against, some live sites are run regularly as well: https://arewefastyet.com/linux64/network/overview?numDays=30 We also have a very conservative fallback mechanism that will disable HTTP/3 on any error. I am not worried about interoperability and web-compat issues very much, but at the same time this is a new protocol (Google has shipt this version of QUIC just recently as well) and it will need more testing on the internet. New transport protocols are influenced by network paths(middleboxes, firewalls, routers, etc) and that is out of our control. Also using UDP as a transport protocol introduces some problems. UDP does not work on all network paths and for that we have very conservative fallback mechanisms. > Also, what's the priority on enabling other test types over HTTP/3. wpt > has some quic support for WebTransport [1]; is that something that we > should be looking to enable in our test infra? > > WebTransport is a different protocol proposal. This is not specified yet. This is not HTTP/3. dragana > [1] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/quic.md > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
