IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Mon, 25 January 2021 18:43 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 6F4643A173E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:43:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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_20=0.7, 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 hA3PWmWOBUgx for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B683A173D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-3003117.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.24.83]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 069C8E03B2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:43:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1611600219; bh=xN+za8ILrYyRNkJCRUdAsTIsOXsZcBjhRvOkGqxoWeQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=KjnZDBBapkpfAIEmq1/i0YkStyiRsHg6HUYQDEnj2FSMgs1I+RrrTNVeV6fhzYI1o tJjV6WfKBkz/THpqmAXW7utyP9k8kRGtVckM6gKMhJXTXiCX+F3rcTLtcKTDgNVB5I stHrMpR9clJmppx8j8VUy/MJXjIBp3v7NSi1g1Zs=
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:43:39 -0800
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5V4OZQUBCJNVHEZGV6DLZFVEVBNHHC6GTPEA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4779/767029977@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_600f115b342c_4b1a042360d8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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/q1t3uG1SJGcglfuZ9zCCea9mNzk>
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:43:41 -0000

I guess my point is that the text describes what QUIC v1 without extensions provides, not what HTTP/3 on v1 requires. When there is only one option, there is only one natural solution.

The reason I suggested to point this out is to allow future HTTP/3 an ability to iterate on this requirement, which could be done in a document that describes a change to the requirement of the frame(s) defined in this spec. That might help to make people aware of when they need to negotiate the extension.

To put it another way. If QUIC v1 offered unreliable and reliable streams. We would likely say that all H3 frames must be delivered on the reliable stream and explain why.

-- 
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-767029977

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email