Re: WGLC for Datagram Extension

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Fri, 17 September 2021 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85BD3A13C1; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
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 ZjP0kGMzJdFz; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFA683A13BD; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::1] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:1]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 18HAsdUl167175 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:54:39 +0200
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1631876080; bh=HznUrxEv/87L7jd/iv0zOFRO607fxZgYFDasTX+MYvU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MzFwHP6TxuHQwTTdDJ/0ziyadI5NB73pNKamvci04MQDsNfmspXXKm+YF7qSofnub dlQNMfJp4c5AYFnLKnZWbbnD/cS9TU5NNSaiRUuN9Z5joOCp8rP5IGUtlhap4DNt6J 3WR1GXxyWaxQLlCVR6LXoexFiCrEgD/bwrj+HLro=
Subject: Re: WGLC for Datagram Extension
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: quic@ietf.org
References: <CALGR9oaZ4L_yJPhm11Gym8Rxc0nq6H=mCpLGsH_eMGVHer0uEA@mail.gmail.com> <75277e56-e02e-d530-3c0a-e5d604daf5ad@lear.ch> <9d0b4a05-b76a-4567-8c2d-e0b54d336218@www.fastmail.com> <7B224643-B548-4DE5-9B66-BBDD371E63C6@apple.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Message-ID: <7d9e1815-27bd-000b-2ac1-38644bcb15cd@lear.ch>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:54:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7B224643-B548-4DE5-9B66-BBDD371E63C6@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="egEgqOSwCCSBJLH5iOyhSBq6Lqnoqj7Og"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/0lFHUDMijxHI1UyPORvxFhK7KsA>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:54:51 -0000

Ok, thanks for this.

I would further suggest that an example flow be included; even if it is 
just two or three datagrams.  Showing it all in operation is always helpful.

Eliot

On 17.09.21 02:05, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Agreed that the word “strongly” can simply be removed.
>
> Applications using QUIC can choose to associate particular datagrams 
> with data sent on a stream—like HTTP/3 choosing to add a value 
> calculated based on stream IDs into the payload of the DATAGRAM 
> frame—but such associations do not belong to the transport protocol.
>
> https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/52 
> <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/52>
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy
>
>> On Sep 16, 2021, at 4:48 PM, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net 
>> <mailto:mt@lowentropy.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, at 07:00, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>> DATAGRAM frames belong to a QUIC connection as a whole, and are not
>>>> strongly associated with any stream ID at the QUIC layer
>>>
>>> What does "strongly associated" mean in this context? Apologies if this
>>> is well trodden ground.
>>
>> This is unfortunately so well-trodden that this text was added 
>> without consideration for people who weren't involved in the 
>> trampling process.
>>
>> I think that "strongly" can be struck here, it's working too hard. 
>>  And smart people will latch onto it.
>>
>> Context:
>>
>> When we use DATAGRAMs in HTTP (and likely in other contexts) there 
>> will be a need to bind each DATAGRAM to a (request) stream.  That's 
>> necessary to ensure that flows of DATAGRAMs can be routed by gateways 
>> and the like along with the stream.  There were lots of debates about 
>> how to manage that binding and the layer at which it would be 
>> documented.  This text is likely intended to record the conclusion 
>> that this document definitely isn't where that sort of binding 
>> occurs, but for someone without that history.  It doesn't really 
>> achieve that though and because it doesn't need to (why would you 
>> think that any association exists?), it ends up being distracting.
>>
>