-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 208
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add a new QUIC codepoint for QUIC v1 #298
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removing
quic
name will break all implementations that parse text multiaddrs based on libraries generated from this table.@marten-seemann is the plan to do a hard BREAKING CHANGE across ecosystem (forcing end users or implementations to update bootstrap/peering configs and DNSAddrs manually)?
OR
do we want to have a ~1y deprecation period when both are valid, like we did when we renamed
/ipfs/{peerid}
to/p2p/{peerid}
?(fysa we've removed the legacy alias entry just recently in #283).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was planning to keep parsing
quic
as draft-29 for the foreseeable future, but emitquic-draft29
from now on (for the limited amount of time that we still support it).Is there any way to encode this kind of logic into the multicodec table?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think so. We should do the rename later and for now simply add the quic-v1 codepoint. (I left a similar comment in the multiaddr PR: multiformats/multiaddr#147 (comment))
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I reverted this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could add another code-point for
quic-draft29
and just deprecate the use ofquic
altogether. That is semantically equivalent to a rename but can be expressed in the table if we also add a "Status" called "deprecated".There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would advocate for not renaming things in this table anymore, ever, and to make this table append-only. We have an increasing number of critical systems and businesses relying on these values remaining constant. There is enormous value in using the names as human-readable codes, but if we are unable to commit to not breaking names then I think we should just remove them entirely and rely on the description, which implies that it's for human and not machine consumption.