Re: [dispatch] [hybi] WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20)

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:40 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 DADCE120426 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
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=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 snYLWFBINgoN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
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 0E5A5120405 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hpwre-0002Te-Vh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:38:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:38:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hpwre-0002Te-Vh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <pthatcher@google.com>) id 1hpwrc-0002Ss-9Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:38:04 +0000
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <pthatcher@google.com>) id 1hpwrZ-0006wL-SB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:38:04 +0000
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id k9so29063686vso.5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
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=KjFcZbFOXA/3xLyOLWBZeTKs+2je2pU6jKp0rUuAZSk=; b=v8bVtu+ksIn4kO98yh1XYwHvJuJBKtS5YkFfkAlAcduEe6sVZVfLMg86uSAqMrnYsf RLf8wGrUoYZ713s4t+x70W8rOrYERX/Jb2AY5VB9OzM0V294M9xsvF61hcbeFCRRuSfs HgN54dNVjbVWpk0WAzI+nknKLVbuO6bv01JiskhHSFWLJ0xzjMP5Q6YStL5zu8JXSz/8 H8S6YOlBYh7fr4OXtOnaWLVOnDHYtTBLbTiQO7Mg+o+QQBHrbgu+X0YmrxUPp7IFEA17 /Mh7ZVuflNLZYVpWdpYjhoYpq8ANUQ3n74GQS9mHloiO+6XZ+AmLLfbE4KoUgBKf4xB6 Icmw==
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=KjFcZbFOXA/3xLyOLWBZeTKs+2je2pU6jKp0rUuAZSk=; b=bfk0uaYT7HglIbMcoGqICJ+F20O2fRrmvkzmMBlJeJcVzCp7/9OrHP3qy+4amIk/bB tBhDpPMFWLCTCRhlO7sI06lF4hilz5bLOVc+a3trbpirYeBCZGxq9dcPnKTqs/bHfKF9 4gjuepNmzZjppgB3tItQyPpt+1zM0k9Llq6sjifC89dHKRKDLn1/y0wlbBPL+ysvSCQ4 w617FrCfgCK1dQDqTfMES4UTBA4W2JbjK2Lfd7WSbSoeTVj6mh4Z955IwviZ2wCexXj4 Nhiovb+WLGxHJbQy7eRxZOKk4NNdArJaNmQWGH0PdJ1CdY28WQjA3g8ZIRSHk+GygTxZ qPew==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXqB9RmGdDLGXjWhGiA7ilzfidRZ2GOEbtP/3WBX1idmVTFv0+B Ve3PDfBc8Y2RFVc5hypMGmFBW0lt/rX0r4G5z9Gd6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw7328LdDEQuf8TIIo3b4QPI68nnE4n3lb6TUzHIjictqDKuBR6RAkmD3724k5hN1P4PH4rVaJUM0lOrsacsc0=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e41a:: with SMTP id d26mr47807623vsf.71.1563896259834; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAZdMacqbqYVs4MeoE-ahukgLzf0+nNhNip4HTGThobXhqCceQ@mail.gmail.com> <5c631764-25e2-ce37-3f84-8eca5a8378eb@warmcat.com> <E8ABA72D-541E-45BE-B032-237CAC37F3A8@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <E8ABA72D-541E-45BE-B032-237CAC37F3A8@apple.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:37:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUE2P8WiM783AXg2BgCXi_goHFMbYTP9PkPa4mof0MJYaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, hybi@ietf.org, David Schinazi <dschinazi@google.com>, dispatch@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000008df14058e5af90e"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35; envelope-from=pthatcher@google.com; helo=mail-vs1-xe35.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=4.329, BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hpwrZ-0006wL-SB a1bdaf149de7b408924e2f46efad7ff8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [hybi] WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAJrXDUE2P8WiM783AXg2BgCXi_goHFMbYTP9PkPa4mof0MJYaA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36823
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>

At a quick glance,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport/?include_text=1
seems
like a decent fit for the WebTransport  API.  It seems better than trying
to fit the WebSocket API.  But do we expect people to implement it on
servers before they implement QUIC?  I suppose even if it takes longer, it
may have the advantage of working on more networks than QUIC and HTTP/3
potentially (for networks that still block UDP, for example).



On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 5:29 PM Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=
40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:

>
>
> > On Jul 22, 2019, at 4:59 PM, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>; wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/22/19 1:36 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >> Today, at the dispatch working group meeting (18:10), I am going to
> present WebTransport. WebTransport is a protocol framework that allows
> multiplexed and datagram-oriented transport protocols to be used by the web
> applications (think “WebSocket for UDP”).
> >
> > "Historically, web applications that needed bidirectional data stream
> >   between a client and a server could rely on WebSockets [RFC6455], a
> >   message-based protocol compatible with Web security model.  However,
> >   since the abstraction it provides is a single ordered stream of
> >   messages, it suffers from head-of-line blocking (HOLB), meaning that
> >   all messages must be sent and received in order even if they are
> >   independent and some of them are no longer needed.  This makes it a
> >   poor fit for latency sensitive applications which rely on partial
> >   reliability and stream independence for performance."
> >
> > The HOLB isn't really entirely the case... RFC6455 ws allows arbitrary
> fragmentation of messages allowing interleaving with control frames.
> >
> > ws-over-h2 allows you to can the h2 stream when you want as well.
> >
> > " Each new stream would require a WebSocket handshake to agree on
> >      application protocol used, meaning that it would take at least one
> >      RTT for each new stream before the client can write to it."
> >
> > Yes it was knowingly done as a hack to try to encourage uptake from
> browser vendors... it's not really integrated into the encapsulating
> protocol.
> >
> >>  * WebTransport overview:
> >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-overview-00
> >>  * QuicTransport:
> >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-quic-00
> >>  * Http3Transport:
> >>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-http3-00
> >
> > There's no h2 transport implementation?
> >
> > Not everything that might want to use this will get h3 capability in a
> reasonable timeframe.  If there's more momentum behind it than RFC8441
> there's probably room for a generic long-lived bidirectional extension to
> h2 either reusing DATA or a new frame type.
>
> Definitely agree! I know that we’ve been chatting a bit with Victor about
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport/
> which aims to provide this, and I think it would be worth making sure that
> this works nicely with WebTransport.
> -00 for that document covers effectively what you’d get with a new frame
> type, and -01 extends 8441 to cover more than just WebSockets with the
> extended CONNECT handshake.
> I don’t have a particularly strong preference for the mechanism used, but
> rather care more about the outcome — very much agree that this is a useful
> component.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> >
> > It's a good idea to have it ride on other protocols.  Not doing this
> really hurt RFC6455 ws since deploying it usually needed extra, different
> servers with the attendant difficulties interoperating with other protocols.
> >
> > I really suggest thinking through the effects of not having an RFC6455
> type subprotocol (unless I failed to spot it).  It really makes an implicit
> assumption about what the stream will carry that doesn't scale beyond one
> server carrying one thing.  That's not how things tend to pan out if the
> protocol is useful.  The url path could be hacked to imply the subprotocol
> but if that's not standardized it's still a mess.  And the subprotocol
> binding may be orthogonal to the url layout complicating things needlessly.
> >
> > -Andy
> >
> >>  * Web API Spec draft: https://wicg.github.io/web-transport/
> >>  * Discussion on use cases:
> >>    https://discourse.wicg.io/t/webtransport-proposal/3508
> >> Cheers,
> >>   Victor.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> hybi mailing list
> >> hybi@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>