Re: H3 ALPN?
Dragana Damjanovic <dragana.damjano@gmail.com> Thu, 29 April 2021 08:50 UTC
Return-Path: <dragana.damjano@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 9FCD73A3647 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 01:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 kVmPGUn7Xm5j for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 01:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (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 02DE83A3645 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 01:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id y4so63420001lfl.10 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 01:50:24 -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=Rua6E8wcX5J2rQdmhx3xfrqHe6q/HzWJ4ypRg6RxisM=; b=lsYK0TysYnooLOA0WVPAvHdH4T1tFJwtJHDRva7ldbfNqTvs5rIRGl1CMRNkKKNfHb gUytdEvULddsNNC28jIVTTyE9bVYsnMx8UkARSneAwyBvvEps0QufGuBYRyznkMG7dZ+ w0BU1AZUz1lCZAwiZD5RcusZIX0n8ITQt/ks6dR2+hYhTy/SYGuE2rqQlQ+bAsATRggX isEGqQ/55Cz2NCbKitcmQr5xSMLxAHXfgnTaT/xAh1v5UPUXCfCVcZcaK7bAmdOZuduf EM5TTGu+y/7Y7MbkbPy20eZvla1/lBPyAuWqwlnYTOA8iEQ5K2+RQXwTVVDnX7LGwYYP GyjQ==
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=Rua6E8wcX5J2rQdmhx3xfrqHe6q/HzWJ4ypRg6RxisM=; b=VT5rxhd/hfQdAHZy2MqQetT7aCsM0HHp8y0w24KB6eA0Mq25HmMMxxFSRFIVeN0pzG kKcoCznQCkorXQ8YaDgBC7W3mzAp15TfM31uyLMG4zVesAfBYbnZzEatT6jV3ABvD1aD afSstxHmtQcuT5Qji1FFH+sxaLa7eLrzEHk6XNaTM2BxEzHHU4Py9VWu2+/kO+lCkWwu Ex0DoSx0r4vMITtFbJaYrOgFuZguvjiUEyi/9kR4i/b8GEQ3CrzvattAgAvwvtIDiEXK 80/LfqVX5Q669p01LjfMrJ9gOG/shEnQx//loePhwkZFxFUAeZjLUO86RQM5DarcxNMY T+AA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/5oipCVIlSKR6+klUL6Jabd7UOMb7QfUScqG02NTcm8WeGUDx OFFL5cI1Qc4Cn4EnoLit/+vKVhpsesman/1Uu2afhXmnffA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzx5x+bthtsh1Sza03Q/RoYivdjKA2dcwRMnAHkN+c1NvrpCASm/juyHQ6wdtPJzCrvobuTJpPuvzT88AxAyHA=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4a83:: with SMTP id l3mr7637177lfp.229.1619686221875; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 01:50:21 -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> <CAM4esxQ5S0OGFUov_3VE6sBmMa2-1MQ4gDKgyF3L-+M_OKD4fQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQ5S0OGFUov_3VE6sBmMa2-1MQ4gDKgyF3L-+M_OKD4fQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dragana Damjanovic <dragana.damjano@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:50:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG0m4gTphKdmBCBMw2Z6KSDy1a4hUZpkME2tEZQCFryUkvfG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: H3 ALPN?
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e70d5805c1189598"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/Sg4LyayPt31dmiaPAwjb03Mrf8Y>
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: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 08:50:30 -0000
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:28 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> 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/ > > I believe the conclusion was that we would use 0x00000001/h3 as soon as > QUIC RFCs shipped, before H3 RFCs shipped. > > That works for me as well. The neqo(our quic/http3 library) already implements this. This is currently not exposed in Firefox. Dragana > 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 >>>>> >>>>
- H3 ALPN? Martin Duke
- Re: H3 ALPN? Martin Duke
- Re: H3 ALPN? Martin Duke
- Re: H3 ALPN? David Schinazi
- Re: H3 ALPN? Martin Duke
- Re: H3 ALPN? David Schinazi
- Re: H3 ALPN? Tommy Pauly
- Re: H3 ALPN? Dragana Damjanovic
- Re: H3 ALPN? David Schinazi