Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-http-33: (with COMMENT)

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Tue, 19 January 2021 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
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 69E943A167B; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:01:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 YptoxJKjV_32; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 183ED3A1679; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id hs11so27467816ejc.1; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:01:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3WF0LZCkLQPfuHhDK3jobUiS7rF49sIHOMH4E0Djo/0=; b=GvgdB5pRTNXoJQNui3IfOk/sMeAJ4PNqYc6oMvHzS0MQ0MLcR3563tEY5enqggVq1n axcn3f6OM4k1u2/MezSYgm7/2xr8+3Kkllxb/Ync2kMqp/vENVj9n27AJs7h4x6BnhJl O+uQsVqQX0uRzVqtT72tFOfYOGl483j9NLVbu8k9ZPyisEzpQb1p7emh96Y+P9Ivuo3V Q5LWi9uHe/8fAw0HkMvxK75LlHXEa4dY+WBF7DuteOSNUE5PJ6oU1mL5PVm29YahPzKa Kl55038RE1X4SsnI/lDDj2fl2XQQhQO5jyiaBFH+xjlXFWvZAKa8FHBIuViB0K4WoGXo We2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3WF0LZCkLQPfuHhDK3jobUiS7rF49sIHOMH4E0Djo/0=; b=TKkJd9s8okU6htVcO92sQ8eSRM4knJpTQVTNzaIySlQScd3xzMZ/AkcxzrUZ7wXk0k julqCTzoV2H36NwDg0KXwnG3+hZGe6ByRxrtC6LjJwOftcMwuL4Denw6vtOPncDjsRTS pLAkHkilrTJb5LophvvHyMhy1Ofmrg+EMrBuLbOP4b+lQBrtAVsMyXTeGtdCCNa9yGHB Zrr0XqKZ/5TT+zD0Rikp0LZFXOcNWY3qQDl59FuZKAotFBrKQhuEnV0KdqKmfM6NZsyD o4J4bhJQ6zt5/hPU92Hl+J8Bx78jajIUtRURuen2nWDLSnJY4Ywj/V9lUHEPsuUiz9ui /XlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532v0KSDbPV8SeHOmBWSSW4Tt6z1p53ebCTakPJFY44IfY94iNLF 106I154wAWMTBNeHc3ftRr6nrS1FM41Qym0WC3w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8cb8Y7RhaFn/jx8sU24J5vEpZBaM1vTHLgjVv+dt4jVmaP9CnHFfLpLuUBwGrAsEnM1Ycd/SQ3zh3DtHXbmk=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4a04:: with SMTP id w4mr3854473eju.46.1611079298485; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:01:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161106448406.26552.16863326901621009685@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <161106448406.26552.16863326901621009685@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:01:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9ob9-99yY1tM1f-hD3e54VHv7PMeF3PiwJgPxMTfikKjYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft=2Dietf=2Dquic=2Dh?= =?UTF-8?Q?ttp=2D33=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
To: =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tl?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-quic-http@ietf.org, WG Chairs <quic-chairs@ietf.org>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004a939f05b944a1d6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/0p4_LcL4bUSli6gEcYKGPD8pIJE>
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: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:01:43 -0000

Hi Éric,

Thanks for the review. I've created a GitHub issue to track each comment on
the QUIC WG respository, see the URL in line.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 1:54 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-quic-http-33: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-http/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
>
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
> appreciated), and two nits.
>
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> == COMMENTS ==
>
> For many comments, please bear with my lack of expertise in HTTP in
> general.
>
> -- Section 1.1 --
> This section mixes "HTTP/1.1" and "HTTP/1.x" and it is unclear to me what
> the
> link is between the first 2 sentences.
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4751


> -- Section 3.1 --
> In "clients SHOULD attempt to use TCP-based versions of HTTP in this case."
> Should the version(s) of HTTP be specified or is it done on purpose to
> allow a
> HTTP/4 over TCP (if ever) ?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4752


> -- Section 4.2 --
> Should this section mention the work in MASQUE? While I am not really
> familiar
> with MASQUE, isn't it using the CONNECT H/2 method (e.g.,
> draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp albeit for UDP) ?
>
>
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4753

-- Section 4.4 --
> Should the client behavior be specified when server does not respect "A
> server
> SHOULD use Push IDs sequentially, beginning from zero. " ?
>
>
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4754


-- Section 5.3 --
> Should the CONNECT method behavior be specified when the client does an
> immediate closure?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4755


> -- Section 5.4 --
> Should the server behavior be specified when the QUIC transport aborts ?
> It is
> mostly obvious that all states will be cleared but what about the CONNECT
> method ?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4756


> -- Section 11.2.1 and others --
> I must admit that the purpose of the special "0x1f * N + 0x21" values are
> unknown to me (or is it only for application padding as described in the
> security section?) but shouldn't they be reserved in the IANA registry?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4757


> == NITS ==
>
> -- Section 1 --
> " These semantics have most commonly been used with
>    HTTP/1.1, over a variety of transport and session layers, and with
>    HTTP/2 over TLS. "
>
> The asymmetric use of comas is puzzling, should there be a coma after
> "HTTP/2" ?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4758


> -- Section 11.2 --
> Should "and a contact of the HTTP working group (ietf-http-wg@w3.org)."
> rather
> be "and a contact of the W3C HTTP working group (ietf-http-wg@w3.org)." ?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4759

Cheers
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs