Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SNI requirement for HTTP/QUIC (#794)

From: Jacob <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 07:09:42 -0800

In the issues section, it says that you can not send suggestions, and the iron must be forged while it is hot, so I will leave this idea here:

_Since many system administrators [filter](https://www.google.com/search?q=block+quic+protocol) QUIC traffic (many ways based on udp ports 80, 443), forcing the user to return to TCP, I would like to suggest a way to speed up the integration of QUIC on the Internet.
It consists in using a TXT record with the value or intervals of ports to which the server can accept QUIC connections.
Thus, QUIC ceases to depend on a single port, gaining scalability.
Thank you._

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/794#issuecomment-751478419

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 07:24:01 -0800

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-03. 

But this is not a problem that the base drafts need to solve, so there is really nothing more to discuss here.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/794#issuecomment-751480138