IETF Logo Mail Archive

HTTP Delays

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Mon, 11 January 2021 20:56 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 9C0AF3A1207 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:56:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 75W0kXNhswOy for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:56:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 75B493A11FF for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:56:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id y19so601684iov.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:56:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=gAPETGUeclSPGgno1KLKmt2rho/zIT0WhE6OlW74VLw=; b=BFBpU33K+T82ApKmQVZx2E7phJ5TKfo01SToaD7NVyj8Dr4Rkif3tzdQ3fVw46MUph 0xd47bXUWSf4bbVsfw8/pVmWqjGTubnbUeDe0rrtMjFQ9m7Pm9cPYodcuttfZjrJgHk7 Pyjt9Zx9/Y5CoCE2uj6r41zeJGWricUEJtNc6zCa17bTAFdbH5IFeLKGyLFqwrABPye1 cgdf0MGxsrtOOb4dBZffp/Jw++XYalbcIOEL7dCfzZt+yWN/mZpSagiQXEKYxx5zqpQi OqWGYorFvNGtHOzSKmPM7+g1cZz+e1AE6rQZ4B0MZpdsxRSL1vmc5o4+Hv/ZQW8sT9k5 YqZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=gAPETGUeclSPGgno1KLKmt2rho/zIT0WhE6OlW74VLw=; b=G1VOj+gm8IlUKJVUEYD3ESAfD4KAOTc9COgIb9WLPM+bLIc1c4q58y7+MtxNht9ARV +vd/JkNL/4n52XuFpz618dSf7LR/08x08zRDr9pV9/IMna+K9rEdJNKx70xUxL5WqvOB ETnogHOuQzY2TeocDE0zndL7v/FgzL0MLPAoj7UxgZDXBkZizZyhAWXN1AnXqEDN4kp/ eXkZy9H/iaKMitzJIks+VEpEWc4v4Ka+Pp6JGvFfV61/X7zdQmkbwSdFypZpGPVZdk4n 1WkuVLrA5wpx3DHVAh9uIckAzow9vTDBB2N5tAZ60J0cPnpJT08cAQYE6VGebZBK77kN FAhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53342Mh/dy46B7bUmqiGxw5V1hu50UZofjjZv+qluscdc2+1GuMs CTZcQlg+0T1GjNS8Q+7R5aCfyDjnxjsWvazwX9lWu/pr/vs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzDXwtZBI0tQM2Uabb19cSp56iEhv47z8ImNpc++g8kazzuArwMffK93HXWyAbmIoW1iL/qHuvjoPlT+aPuhZE=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:999a:: with SMTP id a26mr1349900jal.103.1610398602308; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:56:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:56:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxSObWwLfzRWazAg+Q+9=BHGzXaSSduONozHF_zGCqC-kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: HTTP Delays
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a32f4d05b8a62446"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/AQM3or1TNnInYhWe8UEx5B6nrgw>
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: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:56:45 -0000

I was disappointed to realize that quic-http has two normative references
(httpbis-cache and https-semantics) that are not even in WGLC.

This suggests that there will be significant delay (best case, months)
between QUIC and HTTP/3 finalizing as RFCs.

How are we to handle deployment of this? Will there be endpoints operating
QUICv1 with h3-29 or h3-32? Or have the chairs cooked up a maneuver to
avoid this problem?

Martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email