Re: H3 ALPN?

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 28, 2021, at 7:27 AM, Martin Duke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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/ <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.

That certainly seems to be the most reasonable path, to me.

Best,
Tommy
> 
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 7:22 AM David Schinazi <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Damn it, wrong http
> 
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:40 PM Martin Duke <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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