[art] Artart early review of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-01

Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 16 July 2022 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA31C159481; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 19:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: alto@ietf.org, draft-ietf-alto-new-transport.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.8.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <165793872223.41650.10352184409250846392@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 19:32:02 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/kdQlNP06sqJDVcBFqHi-3dLLJj4>
Subject: [art] Artart early review of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-01
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 02:32:02 -0000

Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review result: Ready with Issues

My apologies for a late early review(!?!).

I might be confused about this, but I see that this specification uses these
HTTP2 settings

0x02     SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH (a BCP14 “MUST”), and
0x03     SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS (a BCP14 “must”)

RFC 9114 reserves these in the parallel HTTP/3 registry
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#iana-setting-table), and says this
about these reserved values in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#section-7.2.4.1:

7.2.4.1. Defined SETTINGS Parameters

Setting identifiers that were defined in [HTTP/2] where there is no
corresponding HTTP/3 setting have also been reserved (Section 11.2.2). These
reserved settings MUST NOT be sent, and their receipt MUST be treated as a
connection error of type H3_SETTINGS_ERROR.

Is that going to be a problem?

I’m also wondering if you need in-order delivery of results across multiple
QUIC streams. If you do, could you please let me know?

I hope this is helpful.

p.s. I should also let someone know that the HTML version of this draft says
it's -00 in the heading, but the date matches the date for -01, so I THINK I
was looking at the right version, but I've never seen that before.