IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP Alternative Services Best Practices?

Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3565012003F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:07:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id THK37EnWfcan for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4E2D120026 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:06:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ihMpi-0008H7-Oi for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:04:54 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:04:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ihMpi-0008H7-Oi@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <rch@google.com>) id 1ihMpg-0008El-GP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:04:52 +0000
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <rch@google.com>) id 1ihMpf-0001Dm-Bj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:04:52 +0000
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id d16so323355wre.10 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:04:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f0Voc+klCN0MuwidDNzD8D3Qzk5Xhsguid1Lo5fzfE4=; b=JGqgox5FgqGvnDAz0lH92AsfQqqhDR2y0G/5ybCF01hyfgvloVLbUA+L5h3mwzIlap X+R4ARBJu4i5io3uvfHQWE0UJ6TCNN0J4TGtiSu3FjRCHVJfWcYd7pPAnHzFb8ybjd52 tOCn5g9dckdu1mDoGBngCc/4hZTRpAQ4D+ZE4KE0NeeNMNGR3NyZaty6r/favt5LjpTU C0UUFeMYdHe5F2GtLzqfn7Ljj5WkTCpQACpmdEgCUaiTS7HYDV18zIdhO+dqC0TYfDpN YutT1TbQIG7miX4OTxrTmyP/GQ9yqusyBfSo+lbZGJGgTPPKt/PG74cWkCrzaMPWuMbc q/rg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f0Voc+klCN0MuwidDNzD8D3Qzk5Xhsguid1Lo5fzfE4=; b=tmjlfX029qWeaIxfVp13GUz+Vjn2ZbIZ7OhYJDwbDoqR3OopbUXGUyOEuDD0EOTWqe 0vcrpu2EsNPO0bqdV1fd27OGwNJKjphCm8jAW9lbcc3l/h/LHKRMqQ7CEffLS1GOtF1Q 6ee9eKwGtDaQSUNBBqcHdosz8V89jowJ+5jWij8WWq1rCUe2cfgm0WtBNdJIBmzL8qSm LoSezyoStq2Mgdljjb5GPZUV8CzW3ZAKBG5X4Stg/Dyq6xpu8NbVR/P7Yfi+vJkECrXP w9wgl1g7wie0bmmII2QkO21a1FAIoAuFelXVU3zBFls8WDddMjaSbPK+Bx53kmLg8oRQ /f7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX1wx2QBVEDqSBXQxqnQWAFovo172g9EAUfvPP3G+XIV2m9yblk Fu7UbO7nkp1Wr3WDR6ImdIYY0LESrp/9TZFL5Mb7OeAkdII=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxzz3h/C3tXqNPixspam8uvCmVmBaEZisPLMplp80c7laQyZNrM9hO+kzzAtAo+BIgYVYknfWWxoUO29ojj5EE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:50:: with SMTP id k16mr364979wrx.145.1576627489087; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:04:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9oaCNigDAZP=ue-sORxCJFzkVynhaJszjjY_ohN56ewy8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ_4DfQDgaouwoMyG1f2v4_CndWWNpqft+9=zbOfeM_ek7mSHA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR22MB20105A0DA471BB9419E6BDEADA500@DM6PR22MB2010.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <CALGR9oYAURH4KnzHKmASQdOA6-rH+V-v2Ro2cekVQpnzZS-XNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9oYAURH4KnzHKmASQdOA6-rH+V-v2Ro2cekVQpnzZS-XNA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:04:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfQXjEpOsV3fe9tFbV-MCvcubOYm=KkJVOkai2PP8xOQZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006e8d020599ef31fd"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42d; envelope-from=rch@google.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42d.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1ihMpf-0001Dm-Bj 51bd8f351c559527076af04d116cf93e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP Alternative Services Best Practices?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAJ_4DfQXjEpOsV3fe9tFbV-MCvcubOYm=KkJVOkai2PP8xOQZw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37230
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In my original email I also neglected to mention the Alt-Used header or
> the "clear" special value, which may have different considerations
> applicable to different deployments. Is there much experience with these at
> Internet scale?
>

I believe that Chrome does not set the Alt-Used header (missing Chrome
feature #2 in this thread :>) so I have no experience there. On the other
hand we do have experience with clear. We've used it, I believe, when
attempting to shut QUIC off because of security problems. (*sigh*) This
seemed to be relatively effective (as you would expect) in getting clients
to cease attempting to make QUIC handshakes. But I'm not sure we have much
to write home about beyond that...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email