Great interaction. Very refreshing after some of the past problems I've encountered with maintainers treating forks as hostile or "stealing our work".

The message also exposes a reality of how hard it can be to upstream internal changes: They admit they don't have the time to go back and re-submit all of their work as tiny incremental patches that could be reviewed and approved upstream. They estimate it would be on the order of 100 PRs necessary to break it up and get it reviewed. That's a very large time investment for a company that needs to keep moving forward.

Hopefully they stay close in the rest of the implementation details of the project they forked from. After a fork becomes battle-tested enough it might be reasonable to start merging things in larger chunks rather than treating them as incremental development again.

I very much agree, a nice contrast to so much open source drama

The zero-config part is where it gets tricky in practice. I spent a while getting mDNS-based discovery working across different home networks and it's a mess. Half the consumer routers silently drop multicast between subnets, some just rate-limit it into uselessness. You end up layering fallback after fallback (broadcast, then direct probe, then relay) and writing heuristics to pick which path actually works. Having multipath baked into QUIC so the transport just tries all paths and converges on the best one would've saved me a lot of that.

You may be interested in my list here: https://github.com/anderspitman/awesome-tunneling

In particular I believe OpenZiti has a similar focus on embedding the tunnel in the apps.

It’s pretty common for IETF drafts to be substantially complete well before they are finalized as RFCs. For example, supporting ML-KEM in TLS is still a draft, but there are already multiple large scale deployments of it since the technical aspects were nailed down a while ago

It's been a draft for a long while, and was only recently approved