IETF Logo Mail Archive

H3 ALPN?

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 27 April 2021 22:41 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 337833A23AD for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
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 SHKf3DMkg0b9 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 EEDD83A23AC for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id g125so6905472iof.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
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=CsWz1+N3tJ5jQOs5ERIMsC94W65ihccZUsGDzH3tRrI=; b=ggowyRGvzAH4r4VBFADzdUHaVoTnNg1W909Ofc2zqSUrVPJxQxLKvNXe1rCmesMZZc QdC37aYmhcAx12yha1PcXwZLPezPQkewibvoh2/Q9E1q/b9WEaCoSCx3YcSAlO56791C 9axinkE/MUnhcqbozvvIanj0gvqW3EyutFdvPJMpBJSp8Evmv57TwSy4cJ7FyAKzWjWf UIK3rW+xSDVkKUu+eSdAdwwUIFn2g59CGSK5G6eosk9wrZOvjhrAmfZMQYJzkj+AQqK4 iIIQDCX0JKVpNQrk212wOI8tgWBvFKxBFhOizMlt6H6Z4THDPcYVeegsg7BsKNuyfBPn XK2g==
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=CsWz1+N3tJ5jQOs5ERIMsC94W65ihccZUsGDzH3tRrI=; b=XWonML4j3PX81wj6WXRZnWlUCjCCmQDiBYVQUP1IRBDTDPShfCeGJgfI93ZG92aTb7 0QOUwvM+hccrbvjsURiXMCyr0mhOdkiaAZEJza+qz/+eStiHBlBuQ1highqOIBeYrVw1 yWlPiGy9xLC9FNKohyqdLOFMQF4Z6jblTVlFcE/GQPx563xKEhGjqgnw54ngZ2bD60XA Xv+aQlmTTPyvxxF1wQfbLNdCHfxfOVdiI2oYNAdNd8nIO364NepN5qy6DAItjwmEtJIP jm9ILwkywAfNh74n1VXNPVNZmXF+tBsA8z/C9Nqnk2ZgIMwDNpwVxeXOvBWCvfNPtz64 mzuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325hrf2QwfmqaK0pjeDaob3PzsAiTQGM5EhPjRKmMAKGtHJlNIg XbfpygeFcqjW/uLhReseH+2j281onHpm39SnlgMcf3tRHHM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzfXODm8X1BfIXLBb7zBUVUyL9GItfmkdopAb09RUqWUMBA/VEXaIQi2h1dtQCL7uNzHhlb8aWuNCIC+o7wgP8=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9682:: with SMTP id m2mr22179258ion.20.1619563265165; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:40:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxRFzsuhCfXeeuEp2Yyd396b2cLKhK=erxaRm-MC3CUo6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: H3 ALPN?
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001c8c2005c0fbf525"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/M_uWXd2yvucnZwFs66g15ZbpJaM>
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, 27 Apr 2021 22:41:08 -0000

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

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email