IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Auth48: H3 is like H2 but uses QUIC, we get it (Issue #4946)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Fri, 01 April 2022 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B43A3A08CD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 RbPjrXu-7NJM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB1623A1207 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-9d2806a.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-9d2806a.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.102.50]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81A872215B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1648836301; bh=n+jUxm8vmsS6LYoOu6YpHR8pKh1QFQiRP8iHhI4xD8g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vVQviNlWvyUJStNnSW6UPBSe8Nd5CaPD6xDOy8z6/R5HZc2HR8wChPPiKYyJxxldl hVtbnA/LmLIIBe9b5Eb1IBEOaWG0qAfGwTAZMiXJ22eUS6KwpDywCBGJaifxibQQQA y2N3yo1Tb9jZUOWOFOprpdXUIObvAQ6bE5+g4gQg=
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 11:05:01 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5NHI3J6NBVHN6X7D6AKRYU3EVBNHHEHTM6JM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4946/1086190560@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4946@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4946@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Auth48: H3 is like H2 but uses QUIC, we get it (Issue #4946)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_62473ecdca758_5ab4c6fc61875"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/B9ueczaaQTHAUucBpLCxWdyz0bc>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 18:05:49 -0000

Having looked at the references, they all seem reasonable with the possible exception of PUSH_PROMISE noting it behaves "as in HTTP/2."  Most references to HTTP/2 occur either in the first two sections of the document or in the Appendix which specifically discusses the relationship between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3.

#4978 removes that one extraneous reference.  Other than than, I plan to make no further changes to address this feedback unless someone wants to provide a more concrete list of places where the comparison is unnecessary.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4946#issuecomment-1086190560
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4946/1086190560@github.com>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email