HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
quicwg
base-drafts
Shell2018–2024
quicwg / base-drafts

base-drafts

Internet-Drafts that make up the base QUIC specification

Web DevelopmentLearning & ReferenceNetworking
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
14Distinct people
16Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
1.7KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Internet-Drafts that make up the base QUIC specification

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year16 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2018-02-09 16:44:41 UTC to 2024-04-20 10:16:26 UTC.

012342018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

16 sources
karma_pharmer·Apr 20, 2024
QUIC is a step backwards here; it has no multipath support: https://lwn.net/Articles/964377/ Multipath: There are several areas where TCP still has an advantage over QUIC. One of those is multipath support. Multipath TCP connections can send data on different network paths simultaneously — for example, sending via both WiFi and cellular data — to provide better throughput than either path permits individually. Server connection migration is explicitly forbidden by QUIC: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2031
In Multipath TCP for Linux (2022)
still_grokking·May 24, 2023
Well, it's not ready for prime time: https://interop.seemann.io/ A more or less full list of implementations is here: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/wiki/Implementations But I personalty would have qualms with all the C implementations. Crypto and very complex protocols are nothing one should implement in C, imho. This cries for disaster. And what's left, especially in an usable state, is quite underwhelming currently. Higher level libs / frameworks like Java's Netty and Rusts Hyper chose Quiche for QUIC. The only other ready to use libs I've found were AIOQUIC for Python and quic-go. Those are also the only ones with a working WebTransport feature currently. Looking on the above linked inter-op tables MS will need some time to catch up. QUIC is indeed complex.
In Nginx 1.25.0: experimental HTTP/3 support
rektide·Sep 16, 2022
> The best way to experiment with WebTransport is to start up a compatible HTTP/3 server. I'd really like a little more getting started advice here. I'm not sure which if any http3 implementations have webtransport support. I went looking last week for webtransport support, interested in playing around. I thumbed through QUIC implementations[1], and came close to concluding I was just too early to try to use webtransport. Even though it shipped in Chrome 97, >9 months ago. [1] https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/wiki/Implementations
In Using WebTransport
1vuio0pswjnm7·Jun 20, 2022
"So, while it is technically still possible to censor HTTP/3 connections based on the SNI in TLS, the collected data shows that hardly any censors actually parse and use this information (even when they do parse the SNI in traditional HTTPS traffic)." What about the privacy issues raised by SNI.^1 Why have the "tech" company sponsors of QUIC failed to address this problem. Instead they actually wanted to _require_ SNI.^2 There is zero attention to user privacy in the development of QUIC. The protocol increases surveillance and reconnassiance capabilities of the "tech" company sponsored web browser, and user privacy against "tech" companies is completely ignored. Unlike QUIC, at least the TLS project is working on a solution to the SNI problem. Cloudflare offers one of the early solution protoypes, ESNI. I have been using it for sev
Read the rest
eral years now with no problems. In CurveCP, a predecessor of QUIC (and possibly the inspiration for QUIC), SNI is not required. Multiple sites can be securely hosted on the same address.^3 Both TLS1.3 and thereby QUIC use encryption developed by the author of CurveCP. The thinking of the companies behind QUIC regarding available technology seems to be "If it benefits "tech" company strategy then use it. If it only benefits users but not "tech" companies, then ignore it." 1. TLS worked before SNI was introduced, and the web worked before AWS and their ilk existed. There are still many, many, many websites that use TLS but no not require SNI. If one only sees the web as a handful of CDNs, then it is easy to ignore these other TLS sites. However they exist, regardless of whether CDN devotees choose to acknowledge them. And no, trying to perform reverse DNS lookups on IP addresses in real-time is no substitute for grabbing cleartext domain names from SNI. It requires more effort and does not work consistently. 2. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/794 (intersting coicidence: group member arguing for SNI mandate works for a CDN) 3. https://curvecp.org/addressing.html
In A Quick Look at QUIC Censorship
simmervigor·Jun 7, 2022
Yes it was, there was a pretty lengthy discussion dating back to 2017 on the issue tracker https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/253 TL;DR just like HTTP/2, we wanted to avoid friction in deploying these protocols. Having to rewrite URLs because of new schemes is pretty unpalatable, it has major impact. Instead, HTTP/3 can rely on other IETF-defined mechanisms like Alt-Svc (RFC 7838) and the more recent SVCB / HTTPS RR [1] DNS-based methods. The latter has been deployed on Cloudflare a while [2] and supported in Firefox. Other user agents have also expressed interest or intent to support it. The net outcome is that developers can by and large focus on HTTP semantics, and let something a little further down the stack worry more about versions. Sometime devs will need to peek into that area, but not the majority. [1] - https://datat
Read the rest
racker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-... [2] - https://blog.cloudflare.com/speeding-up-https-and-http-3-neg...
In RFC 9114 – HTTP/3
tialaramex·May 28, 2021
IETF work is conducted mostly on email lists, hence the "many thousands of emails". For some newer work like QUIC, GitHub is used to maintain a more to-the-minute shared view of the documents, and then again as mentioned in the text you quoted, GitHub Issues and PRs are used to manage the document, particularly by the most active participants. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts - of course raising issues or PRs for them now won't do anything useful for you, because these RFCs were published. But you can see there were thousands of commits, one of the last being Martin Thompson's minor typographical tweaks summarised as "DOES IT NEVER END?!?".
In QUIC is now RFC 9000
rektide·Sep 25, 2020
Harsh take, but IMO you are irrelevant & asleep as a language unless you have something to offer on: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/wiki/Implementations Phrased another way, your language should be participating in the future of HTTP, which is HTTP3 aka HTTP-over-QUIC. Swift's absence here indicates, to me, that Swift does not take itself seriously as a tool for delivering server side systems. IBM dropping swift was another pretty strong indicator to me. They really tried, they wanted to believe. But this seems like an insular, closed off world, however much they keep going through long lengths like this effort here to open themselves up & make themselves accessible to the rest of the world. Their attempts to build bridges haven't seemed to make people be very interested in transitting over to their parcel of land, the advantages a
Read the rest
ren't clear, choices of language just don't seem that relevant, there's some advantages but overall the day to day won't be radically different except that you'll be an outsider hanging out with a bunch of people mostly entirely doing iOS. I'd be happy to be wrong, seems decent enough, maybe there's some real differentiation that truly improves life, but it also seems like it's a C# type situation, where it exists & is developed only to keep the natives in spirits & from getting restless. I want to re-iterate that I think Swift seems pretty ok. More than not-bad. But languages just don't seem that relevant to me any more. Rust is being extra-strict, but otherwise, the feature-sets of languages doesn't seem very notable. There's some preferences & styles, some community favor that distinguishes languages, but by & large the work is not that different. I'm not sure what I would suggest to Swift to help themselves rise above, to underscore their own meaningfulness, in this kind of murky abyss-like scenario I've painted. I do think trying to win some AI champions makes sense; python seems to be unshakeable there, but that also means there's opportunity for better/different. Trying to get some web-developers web-platform folk on your side is usually a pretty big win, but not easy, & very factionalized already. It's weird days for languages.
In Swift System Is Now Open Source
moderation·Nov 20, 2018
I've seen a number of comments about http/2 and http/3 being driven by Google. The ideas originated there (SPDY and QUIC respectively) but in both cases many different entities backed the ideas and formulated specifications in IETF settings. I'm not sure I buy that somehow Google managed to hoodwink the people that toiled on these specifications in a non-Google environment and managed to influence them in such a way that the output was beneficial to their nefarious goals. There are already quite a number of http/3 implementations from non-Google companies and projects [0]. Cloudflare seem to be big backers of http/3 [1]. There were some other articles today that are generally positive on the http/3 approach. One was from Tim Bray at AWS [2] and the other from @ErrataRob [3]. 0. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/wiki/Implementations 1.
Read the rest
https://cloudflare-quic.com/ 2. https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2018/11/18/Post-REST... 3. https://blog.erratasec.com/2018/11/some-notes-about-http3.ht...
In Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome

Showing the 15 most recent of 16 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.