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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C793D120387 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 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, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 C_3wfOJeG-LT for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe36.google.com (mail-vs1-xe36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A771203AA for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe36.google.com with SMTP id 2so29054658vso.8 for <hybi@ietf.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=s3+sr3t7s6N8+tAwo2RqABSDR6J2YEMGBkAuTTmZrcBaJ4ZtKiqGVRvROtGwWJb+CU zdR4PZsxeV7H5p9kCtCEZOr1Dkl+GJXCFLpnVaPnTk9J4a4k+MJ4PCuFq7jOqX2FKzqP aEY93W3zfnOsSESRJUy2f3y4CuHrYd4vdooCo5ch+IQ4MJDSkClc9/19gJ0ARD5nxpbj qP/RNFnfacUzKDdNurjx4ZOSN6T3NZhaxTuVz3pIgKAtJbNVFemPXJCfyVT54oL2O6Ev 6SlLtGG2bhIxNVpMG0KdcT8qkfm2a1sKFolLCMSMm8tUNaRs9BOACFI9cIgbA1ZjGynZ G3EA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTIJHGQprBBHGyUXbo9LhIPFUQ92zbtpqyxOXPMKpWxKbbDN8l vku675qVuhvrlL0zM7tylOmqzNN9IpbFvVa4igu7fw==
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"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/F01ZoS-PqJnHQqAj16GkN6NSCx8>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [dispatch] WebTransport Side Meeting (Tuesday, 15:20)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hybi/>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:37:55 -0000

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
>