IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's HTTP/3 Comment 4 (#4779)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 22 January 2021 19:15 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 74F7C3A145D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:15:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.732
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.25, 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] 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 1f7N5ecIKpen for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:15:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEFAD3A1446 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-42040b5.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.113.46]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1EEA5340922 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:15:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1611342927; bh=Jw5SGx0sVgAOK/tVQsnw+ox5GuILe8cZfRbY+JV+oPA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=E5T0MhnpEcpqyLo0Bg7OgOJEAOatWuHhTtx7i4ucxDJs6ZldDbUhtAwTi1s2G/tFo 0btGG3QweG6GBR+4oK4O3feWWSHQedPNE96jVeeGHJqj1byw4iSsUVMOa6ikdWu6Pd lmK7CFcHkp5znXKjxgdMVu0SmfXIMKpVo1fY3P/M=
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:15:27 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYZ4VYAWUDXZGUMDVV6C4CU7EVBNHHC6GTPEA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4779/765628767@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4779@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4779@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's HTTP/3 Comment 4 (#4779)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_600b244f1bd63_5a1a04778e0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/fWPjH1tswhkQF2sb_nAjSuvxBfg>
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, 22 Jan 2021 19:15:30 -0000

The application data abstraction that QUIC offers right now is streams, which is what HTTP/3 uses; the text that @MikeBishop pointed to makes that clear. We could change how data is sent in QUIC from STREAM frames to something entirely different, and that should not matter to HTTP/3 as long as the abstraction is the same: reliable, in-order, byte-stream.

I'm not worried about this mapping becoming an effective invariant for HTTP/3, since (i) changing this contract (say, for datagram webtransport) requires negotiating that change at both HTTP and QUIC levels; and (ii) if we don't deploy extensions that use other mappings between HTTP data and QUIC frames, I don't think saying that we allow other mappings in the future does much.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4779#issuecomment-765628767

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email