base-drafts

Internet-Drafts that make up the base QUIC specification

Explore on GitHub Read 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 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 5:05:26 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.

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.
Period	Start (UTC)	End (exclusive, UTC)	Mentions	Submissions	Comments
2018	2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	4	0	4
2019	2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0	0
2020	2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	3	1	2
2021	2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	4	0	4
2022	2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	3	0	3
2023	2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	0	1
2024	2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	0	1

What Hacker News says

3 sources

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