Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-http-32

Lucas Pardue <> Sun, 15 November 2020 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD823A097B; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:02:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2IDUl9WKYUmr; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 446063A097A; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a15so16517039edy.1; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:02:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bc14M09n4ZYMpftfDdagViCrWe+7IUzRr4GXVPALLTc=; b=Fmzr1IyR7uwOpR60UouKx5ZLCX+q8PwLKeBYi98O4lk+AbAi/jO5LGiyVUy+wwnbMs hNUS3Aswq8J6MZRhRPSTaBObWpCtXFykglvWiWvQSkj0ZauVwk+gZNgz2AhE4b+DevTJ zI33D7dRgDNOLKNKXsrwQOfgmN4c+tCJVTGL2RGSLJI1CsrYHIH+B3Fwr5vbqUTJrv57 HyXtW2m1iC9RkTVOwUJGj2wU0PfjNk5S0TOZmjUe1LHBB6cuHfuYtk+84JCUz8ZK2u+7 mZ1DCKq3VqVT4WV9VMoCJbopuQdH6JBEf5JCE/UZOxK4RNrRfZ2IAMnCcO1EcNGvbFIT lJRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bc14M09n4ZYMpftfDdagViCrWe+7IUzRr4GXVPALLTc=; b=pZyJiTgQGw4xMfDzYEVlR2d+7Mrp8mOnBvbvtpD+JvEmp2Nvv4b7JjavUzakEGVhmI UOCuTtkHZSzf+GQoY9qPl6qry1Svxi2QsStdVZ56cAH6zzWHTpM7tX4zBIFRqnHvhH6n bM46zT8hX6XWrbJXwm1T9eVBbiggN9p5idAhmGya25xl/pN9nVUx5TjRNUfV14GLCKlV Ol9Jef9EN7ytV0JKNMKxaUibgycRlD6TLi1HaeamzR/PyEgy4duJPPtIHtIubZljGS4g Siv8xfath7+em3ntHPPyLDmByc8Y82gTSyMTUyt5+G14dxLTi2s3XWT9RxLNUxwCX0y5 eWcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53008DGi0uP7g29lEZJZ1Lswp55tg1WuJeaGxNtLL4stJkYlWOiv ZQg5JsdH+XwsEPATcTFTvey3n3egzydmWFQXDbY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxajcW9NX4IxBxgz53+zGa677aWCl9ab5QxvKvo+NiZH0X+P7N5BJ9ylZ3b7aGLxlF8Hk/rzu4ANPZSzzagb+0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1a33:: with SMTP id be19mr13046725edb.47.1605466950457; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:02:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 19:02:18 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: Theresa Enghardt <>
Cc:, QUIC WG <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000047e03905b429e7ee"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-http-32
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 19:02:38 -0000

Hi Theresa,

Thanks for the review! Since the QUIC WG uses a Github Workflow I've
created a separate issue for each of the items in your review and tagged
you in it, see in-line responses for the precise issue link. All issues are
track in the milestone

We'd appreciate it if you could coordinate with the HTTP document editor
via GitHub, on the issue itself and/or any Pull Request that might be
raised to address your comments.

On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 6:26 PM Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker <> wrote:

> <snip>
> Minor issues:
> The document defines "stream" as a QUIC stream, but then also uses the term
> "HTTP/3 stream". Perhaps it's worth defining "HTTP/3 stream" explicitly, in
> analogy to "HTTP/3 connection". Perhaps it's worth defining "message", too
> (this is only an HTTP concept, correct?).
> The document should make sure it clearly distinguishes terms and concept of
> QUIC vs. of HTTP/3 in all cases. In particular, what is the relationship
> between HTTP/3 frames and QUIC frames? It's important to make their
> difference
> and relationship explicit, as the document uses several other terms
> interchangeably between HTTP/3 and QUIC, like "connection" and perhaps
> "stream".

> The concepts around error codes is not entirely clear to me, e.g.,
> H3_REQUEST_INCOMPLETE or H3_NO_ERROR - Are these a separate concept from
> response status codes such as "200 OK" and "404 Not Found", etc.? Are these
> error codes related to QUIC errors? Is the "application error code"
> mentioned
> in Section 5.3 the same concept or is it a different concept? Is the
> "application error code" an HTTP/3 concept of a QUIC concept? Is
> "connection
> error" used in Section 7 the same concept or is it a difference concept?
> Does a
> "connection error" as used in Section 7 always mean that the entire
> connection
> fails, as opposed to a single stream? Section 8 aims to explain some of
> these
> concepts, and I think the document should reference to this section for
> more
> information when it starts mentioning all these different error types.
> (Or, if
> they are all the same, perhaps the terminology should be unified.)

> Section 4.1.1.
> "HTTP messages carry metadata as a series of key-value pairs, called HTTP
> fields." Are these the same as HTTP headers and trailers? Or are HTTP
> fields a
> more general concept? Are they also allowed in bodies?

> Section
> "because this limit is applied at each hop," ...
> What is a hop in the context of HTTP? I think it's worth at least briefly
> introducing this concept to make things clearer, as the document includes
> many
> different concepts from different layers.

> Section 4.1.2
> "Automatically retrying such requests is
>    not possible, unless this is otherwise permitted (e.g., idempotent
>    actions like GET, PUT, or DELETE)."
> Retrying is "not possible" means it's prohibited? Is there a reference to
> the
> exceptions to that rule, e.g., a list of actions that are considered
> idempotent? If so, please provide a reference.

> Section 4.2
> "A proxy that supports CONNECT establishes a TCP connection […]"
> Is this necessarily always TCP, not QUIC? Can this change in the future?


> Section 5.1
> "HTTP/3 implementations will need to open a new HTTP/3
>    connection for new requests if the existing connection has been idle
>    for longer than the server's advertised idle timeout"
> Only the server's timeout? Does "implementations" here mean only clients?

Section 6.2
> "However, stream types that could modify the state or
>    semantics of existing protocol components, including QPACK or other
>    extensions, MUST NOT be sent until the peer is known to support them."
> Is there a defined list of stream types that are not allowed to be used?
> If so,
> please provide a reference.
> Is section 6 missing the request stream? It has subsections for Control
> Streams
> and Push Streams, but then Section 7 says that Request Stream is also a
> stream
> type.


Kind regards,
QUIC WG Co-chair