[ptth] Re: Restarting the PTTH effort - BoF in Vienna?

Philipp Tiesel <philipp@tiesel.net> Mon, 18 May 2026 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <philipp@tiesel.net>
X-Original-To: ptth@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ptth@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B564EFF5D9E for <ptth@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2026 02:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1779097033; bh=yGFQ+UmnCbysJ7g5NHraZXix5jJ8NRmL3c4m/0wXjzw=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=nIPlFoJWu7hQ5E18R5YQNEn2g8mCJMK0vCpmUoPw7n9uPfFRCeAbogW53HzPswf7J Yw3PTvBmBCax9cPXQb4/Wwd5/SEw9OUMo0sU2SskFhfpM51qZuD2tWAfW8cCBp+aun 9PdK3ombopFWmbGHOPLqMRsdcccQB0rplisA+/Zg=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MDtOxp2mMWn4 for <ptth@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2026 02:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from einhorn-mail-out.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3B26EFF5CC3 for <ptth@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2026 02:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: philipp@tiesel.net
Received: from x-berg.in-berlin.de ([IPv6:2a0a:4580:1018:0:5054:ff:feb2:aa6a]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de with ESMTPS id 64I9aAEg098228 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 May 2026 11:36:10 +0200
Received: from x-berg.in-berlin.de ([217.197.86.42] helo=smtpclient.apple) by x-berg.in-berlin.de with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <philipp@tiesel.net>) id 1wOuOP-0006Fj-RJ; Mon, 18 May 2026 11:36:09 +0200
From: Philipp Tiesel <philipp@tiesel.net>
Message-Id: <29737CC3-10C2-42A7-90CC-F198DFBE5046@tiesel.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1AD2C6AE-5072-4B5B-B0C1-9E4747FDBF39"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.600.51.1.1\))
Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 11:35:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+4AZXx_1VR=OYGttP9zRtScOQFRDRfVkfivNhmsa=nh7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CAPDSy+4AZXx_1VR=OYGttP9zRtScOQFRDRfVkfivNhmsa=nh7w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.600.51.1.1)
Message-ID-Hash: JGTPJKQMWTOB7WDC5I6EI5ROA6BEGVTP
X-Message-ID-Hash: JGTPJKQMWTOB7WDC5I6EI5ROA6BEGVTP
X-MailFrom: philipp@tiesel.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: 🥔 <ptth@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [ptth] Re: Restarting the PTTH effort - BoF in Vienna?
List-Id: "Discusses situations where the transport client/server roles and the HTTP client/server roles are reversed; the transport client is the HTTP server and vice versa." <ptth.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ptth/KoWzqeF1D_WCs1SBchXlrFy-8eU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ptth>
List-Help: <mailto:ptth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ptth-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ptth@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ptth-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ptth-leave@ietf.org>

Hi David,

Thanks for bringing this up again!
I support having a BoF in Vienna!

> On 14. May 2026, at 02:39, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi PTTH enthusiasts,
> 
> We had a great non-working-group-forming BoF in Madrid, followed by some good list discussion on a potential charter in September, but then things died down. I've spoken to multiple proponents and it sounds like there were a few competing priorities that distracted folks in Montreal, and then many weren't in Shenzhen, but we are looking forward to Vienna.
> 
> My main question is: should we hold a working-group-forming BoF in Vienna? If you think yes, please indicate your enthusiasm here! And then, come and check out our draft proposed charter [1].

I read through it and like it as a starting point as it describes the problem well and is not biased against any possible solution yet.

> Another question: should the charter be more opinionated about the overall shape of the solution? We've seen two shapes proposed:
> (a) using a CONNECT stream to do PTTH alongside other HTTP traffic [2]
> (b) using a new ALPN that flips the entire connection [3]
> 
> As currently written, the draft proposed charter would allow either and permit the conversation to be had in the proposed WG. Alternatively, we could make this architectural decision before chartering. Which do you prefer?

I have a strong preference for (a), as I consider (b) quite hacky, but would also be fine to end up with doing both.
I guess it is a good discussion point for the BOF.

AVE!
   Philipp

> 
> Thanks,
> David, 🥔 enthusiast
> 
> PS: the BoF deadline is next Friday (2026-05-22) so please reply before then.
> 
> [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo-3TGTIhARjlVc1ENcS-QfBGYrSjxrktAUpiMd8K4Q/edit
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rosomakho-masque-reverse-connect-00.html
> [3] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thomson-ptth-potato-00.html
> _______________________________________________