Re: H3 ALPN?

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 28 April 2021 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@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 266983A0CC6 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 YKqm-W89H8Cz for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (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 8B6153A0CD6 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id v123so11887249ioe.10 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
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=p6E0iMRZiBsvfGppoO6MrBGBFtZQgH0uB2SH3X/KJfw=; b=IGfo9RO+AWIJpjtpvQdDuO47enEBtHoG3LMgH3IOgZyiaOqJgn1m/314bDdRYzngqw zKcedOg/An5eebfFKazTNoxChhUmEc1z3vFRxgb1ZbiHbar28Cv1LC/A8IQXeH/+7YCG SY8lwPb04agaB5nDfUjfqrIWWT5IacunGJno3P7MOzSpKlzewoMdB9S8BYLH3VSbFRyN wV989Wtd66K6aGYJu7DUNRw3TuiXiipITByNSFN3n3HaiKmN37GZUnv3p37QQ7r0h6Od kFpUg/KNxx9NzO4X4EQrvo05I6SmIkaRbwE6t5cIFNRVxWMy7UYcmHdd/iuClxW4lWGL Ywyg==
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=p6E0iMRZiBsvfGppoO6MrBGBFtZQgH0uB2SH3X/KJfw=; b=jWn0ddK+UvT5h0toO2P7gBO9P3mVsZJFRnWTwIU7g8quXNbWVqMqpeCvvgdjQXe3CG 1L6rBrHJ2/wFNeASd2JjC/4yCZq0znpMrnthHrksVWjXgx1RqObqr8EMe7S1gVUAD/W9 nv9CXPKOlsO13bpC211BiVjsxMF2X+bBwf6zwZpg2vh7D+G95zAtFr/qKZn+9w6JBjox 3jtwiO+POLNUb8iokh/7zAjKJeCImeEGwZZo/oby+JprOGVgc214PpTHyGSiA0j9gsnX iG5ugTt17IxhZyOk9g1nulXLFItzCcfIicwc8JvYGJ9T4lT8kXLF9MwUM/12iRaEgWv/ Cctw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531zCs0+xHAIVQrqg5O0gApTl6d9Upg4jB75eKuXK7k8GfkC67iS gaPTYBiZ+LiJs/jQKmFH0i+9uDGYvVBMcES1JDU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyI7STCwti9nEzAoD20NfX42acAh1KXm5sqHTLbcFxGTOYuHEehSeQNZvQUjbiku4A2pW8ALYJ+V8RT0UbAqCI=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:cc62:: with SMTP id j2mr27904580jaq.103.1619620066009; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxRFzsuhCfXeeuEp2Yyd396b2cLKhK=erxaRm-MC3CUo6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxRuPdhC_Ur+RA5C6QZFaof0ywsdmNtkr3HzPAmyw4Ov0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxS4ZwAGEnTUgKgLzcOUKwzrWOqt3+vdLkakLUVfFEjbjg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDSy+6gUsWn6m0c7KPLu1eDG2p6kh5X9Z1-FkZuo_NHPqoR5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+6gUsWn6m0c7KPLu1eDG2p6kh5X9Z1-FkZuo_NHPqoR5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:27:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQ5S0OGFUov_3VE6sBmMa2-1MQ4gDKgyF3L-+M_OKD4fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: H3 ALPN?
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b4a97a05c1092e30"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/9t5usk_MzrnxKVDFzDYh9251f8w>
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: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:27:50 -0000

I misremembered the previous discussion; it was on the list, not on Slack,
so it's archived. It starts here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/AQM3or1TNnInYhWe8UEx5B6nrgw/

I believe the conclusion was that we would use 0x00000001/h3 as soon as
QUIC RFCs shipped, before H3 RFCs shipped.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 7:22 AM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Google's implementation uses a 1:1 mapping between
> an h3 ALPN and a QUIC version. Because of this, when
> we ship QUIC 0x00000001, it'll be with ALPN=h3.
>
> Our code supports v1/h3 already, but v1/h3 is disabled by default.
> We'd like to align with everyone to pick a date when we start
> enabling v1/h3 in production though.
>
> From the conversations I've had, I think everyone agrees that
> when draft-ietf-quic-http ships as RFC, everyone will be allowed
> to ship v1/h3. I think everyone also agrees that we shouldn't do
> that before draft-ietf-quic-transport ships as RFC.
>
> The open question is: do we wait for draft-ietf-quic-http or do we
> move forward when draft-ietf-quic-transport ships?
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 4:04 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> QUIC, sorry the confusion. The original message in this thread included
>> HTTPbis, and you should reply to that one to keep everyone in the loop.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Damn it, wrong http
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:40 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the quicdev slack channel today, we realized that we had a
>>>> disconnect on what ALPN to use in the interval between the QUIC RFCs
>>>> publishing and the HTTP/3 RFCs being ready (due to a MISREF with
>>>> http-semantics, etc).
>>>>
>>>> It's lost in the slack archives now, but I *think* we had concluded
>>>> that once the QUIC RFCs ship the endpoints should use 0x00000001/h3, not
>>>> h3-29 or h3-32, because the chance of something in http-semantics breaking
>>>> interoperability was nil. I personally don't really care how we converge,
>>>> as long as we converge.
>>>>
>>>> To summarize the choices, in the ~months between the RFCs, are
>>>> endpoints doing a QUIC version + ALPN of
>>>> 1) 0x00000001/h3 or
>>>> 2) 0x00000001/h3-xx
>>>>
>>>> Can we come to an agreement on this point?
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>