base-drafts VS msquic

QUIC Protocol Overview

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

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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-...

After lots of hard work, we're excited to open-source [s2n-quic](https://github.com/aws/s2n-quic), a Rust implementation of the [IETF QUIC protocol](https://quicwg.org/). Feel free to ask any questions here in the comments or by [opening an issue](https://github.com/aws/s2n-quic/issues/new/choose). Thanks!

Maybe check out laminar and quinn, which implement custom protocols on top of UDP (quinn implements QUIC), to get an idea on how to do things.

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?!?".

I referred to sockets as an API design, not to express an opinion on whether you should place your protocol implementations inside or outside the kernel. (Although that’s undeniably an interesting question that by all rights should have been settled by now, but isn’t.)

Even then, I didn’t mean you should reproduce the Berkeley socket API verbatim (ZeroMQ-style); multiple streams per connection does not sound like a particularly good fit to it (although apparently people have managed to fit SCTP into it[1]?). I only meant that with the current mainstream libraries[2,3,4], establishing a QUIC connection and transmitting bytestreams or datagrams over it seems quite a bit more involved than performing the equivalent TCP actions using sockets.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6458

[2] https://quiche.googlesource.com/quiche

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/msquic

[4] https://github.com/litespeedtech/lsquic

The documentation of MS QUIC says it is cross-platform, it should work on Linux, it has a CMake preset for Linux and you can download the prebuilt binary releases for Linux.

https://github.com/microsoft/msquic (QUIC / HTTP3)