Re: [alto] HTTP Review (draft-ietf-alto-new-transport)

Hi Mark,

Thank you so much for the feedback. Could you please see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/CBRGLTekers9PXQ5EE2MtMywMgE/
for an attempt to formulate a generic problem.

As soon as we have a discussion on the generic issue, we will update the
document accordingly, for example, to decide to use HTTP/1.x textual
representation---we used HTTP/1.1 textual and then found that the example
need to illustrate details such as the promised stream (see Promised Stream
4 as an example). We will update as soon as we have a discussion on the
generic thread.

Thanks again!
Richard

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 4:05 AM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I've taken a look at this document.
>
> My high-level feedback is that in principle it's reasonable use of HTTP,
> but how it talks about HTTP versioning and a few other details isn't
> appropriate. I think that a few small editorial updates could improve
> things, and would be happy to make a pull request if you happen to be using
> a Github-based process.
>
> What raises concerns for me is referring to this as 'ALTO/h2' and similar
> things. If you're designing an application that uses HTTP, you need to
> acknowledge that you can't always control the end-to-end version of the
> protocol used, and while you can optimise for newer versions of the
> protocol, you have to be prepared for downgrading to previous ones.
>
> That means that this isn't really "ALTO/h2", it's a new version of ALTO
> that operates more smoothly under later versions of the protocol.
>
> DoH threaded this particular needle as well; rather than branding it as
> "DNS/h2", they merely said " HTTP/2 [RFC7540] is the minimum RECOMMENDED
> version of HTTP for use with DoH." and then: "Earlier versions of HTTP are
> capable of conveying the semantic requirements of DoH but may result in
> very poor performance."
>
> In this spirit, I'd recommend avoiding using the HTTP/2 textual
> representation for examples; most developers are much more familiar with
> HTTP/1.1 when consuming examples, and HTTP/2 contains details which aren't
> relevant for the purpose of conveying an example (we've settled on this
> approach in the HTTP editorial style, see <
> https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>).
>
> Note that I haven't done a full review; these are just the things I saw
> after a quick look.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> > On 11 Jul 2022, at 1:37 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been asked to forward this request for early review; does anyone
> want to take a look?
> >
> > Feedback to alto@ietf.org.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> >> Subject: HTTP Review (draft-ietf-alto-new-transport)
> >> Date: 6 July 2022 at 12:56:56 am AEST
> >> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> >> Cc: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "
> draft-ietf-alto-new-transport@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-alto-new-transport@ietf.org>
> >>
> >> The ALTO WG is currently working on the specification available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/. The
> current version focuses on H2 with the intent to cover at least common
> H2/H3 functionalities.
> >>
> >> The WG is seeking for early reviews so that issues/advice are taken
> into account early in the process.
> >>
> >> We are particularly interested in comments about the handling of H3,
> especially with regards to the guidelines in RFC9250 about HTTP versioning.
> >>
> >> Of course, comments related to other considerations in the draft are
> more than welcome.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto