Re: [Masque] Updated proposed charter text

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:48 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:43 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> In draft-schinazi-masque-protocol I would say that the QUIC, UDP, and IP
>> proxying services run directly on top of QUIC without any HTTP in between
>> (HTTP is only used only for the negotiation part but not for the
>> forwarding/multiplexing).
>
>
> Philosophy aside, do we agree that these messages would be carried in QUIC
> Datagram frames (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-datagram-00)?
>
>
> Therefore I think it would be more correct to actually change this one
>> occurrence of HTTP3 back to  QUIC in the following sentence:
>>
>> "The primary goal of this working group is to develop mechanisms that
>> allow configuring and concurrently running multiple proxied stream- and
>> datagram-based flows inside a HTTP/3 connection"
>>
>
> I'm not sure that this is right. If you use the H3 ALPN token and then use
> H3 to negotiate but also negotiate datagram, this seems like an H3
> connection to me.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
I would find using "QUIC" in place of "HTTP/3" confusing. QUIC requires an
authenticated negotiation of the application protocol and we use ALPN for
that today. There is no mechanism to my knowledge that would allow the
creation of just a QUIC connection, and I don't even think MASQUE requires
that.

IMO it be more accurate for us to say, "The primary goal of this working
group is to develop HTTP mechanisms that allow configuration of QUIC
transport features inside an HTTP/3 connection, with the aim to
concurrently run multiple proxied stream- and datagram-based flows."