IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP Alternative Services Best Practices?

Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rch@google.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 3CA53120073 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 ugkz7_wPV1De for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 0D58312003F for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id g17so363817wro.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:04:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f0Voc+klCN0MuwidDNzD8D3Qzk5Xhsguid1Lo5fzfE4=; b=JGqgox5FgqGvnDAz0lH92AsfQqqhDR2y0G/5ybCF01hyfgvloVLbUA+L5h3mwzIlap X+R4ARBJu4i5io3uvfHQWE0UJ6TCNN0J4TGtiSu3FjRCHVJfWcYd7pPAnHzFb8ybjd52 tOCn5g9dckdu1mDoGBngCc/4hZTRpAQ4D+ZE4KE0NeeNMNGR3NyZaty6r/favt5LjpTU C0UUFeMYdHe5F2GtLzqfn7Ljj5WkTCpQACpmdEgCUaiTS7HYDV18zIdhO+dqC0TYfDpN YutT1TbQIG7miX4OTxrTmyP/GQ9yqusyBfSo+lbZGJGgTPPKt/PG74cWkCrzaMPWuMbc q/rg==
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=f0Voc+klCN0MuwidDNzD8D3Qzk5Xhsguid1Lo5fzfE4=; b=duuiBU3QtP6BX+fUN51NQ0SB89CRKJ2n49OT4y6vgGpqzBRmHPw6+vAFb3YqRHDrIb 2j14r8XO7a4eDBHWW2ZWQMrvyck/zaTWVM4tyb3HVxpAr8HzXPLz3LGEZoaY7DjGmNdC nm1xotxdS5NKhp7UN2ipcYM+CqUY5rpeWKbUrNxKaef1FGWxp7mrvLx5qheuBhti1TQx BaD9avVgtKY0vdkmLB+4C3pjnte3VjC54V57gwjZVZYZE2OALrCXi7WlDi+kcZDzX2SW 3ezcJ1kMuAr4KHXCSzz3RkzEH2tO2/AYwmkK8JtTWbkJHhyLwkotaA1X45/w16k8PuSD PHDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVhrkrdN6RuXVtrQy63NiTrS62mN1uNGR4UjxPrW2Q3pat8UEaE ptxlkZV5tZcrRSAWszawP8tbrBHPYV8APuI9dZrSKg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxzz3h/C3tXqNPixspam8uvCmVmBaEZisPLMplp80c7laQyZNrM9hO+kzzAtAo+BIgYVYknfWWxoUO29ojj5EE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:50:: with SMTP id k16mr364979wrx.145.1576627489087; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:04:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9oaCNigDAZP=ue-sORxCJFzkVynhaJszjjY_ohN56ewy8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ_4DfQDgaouwoMyG1f2v4_CndWWNpqft+9=zbOfeM_ek7mSHA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR22MB20105A0DA471BB9419E6BDEADA500@DM6PR22MB2010.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <CALGR9oYAURH4KnzHKmASQdOA6-rH+V-v2Ro2cekVQpnzZS-XNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9oYAURH4KnzHKmASQdOA6-rH+V-v2Ro2cekVQpnzZS-XNA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:04:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfQXjEpOsV3fe9tFbV-MCvcubOYm=KkJVOkai2PP8xOQZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HTTP Alternative Services Best Practices?
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006e8d020599ef31fd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/ZW9eF0SKuCNxUAy2pz3wNBzWZjM>
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, 18 Dec 2019 00:05:03 -0000

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In my original email I also neglected to mention the Alt-Used header or
> the "clear" special value, which may have different considerations
> applicable to different deployments. Is there much experience with these at
> Internet scale?
>

I believe that Chrome does not set the Alt-Used header (missing Chrome
feature #2 in this thread :>) so I have no experience there. On the other
hand we do have experience with clear. We've used it, I believe, when
attempting to shut QUIC off because of security problems. (*sigh*) This
seemed to be relatively effective (as you would expect) in getting clients
to cease attempting to make QUIC handshakes. But I'm not sure we have much
to write home about beyond that...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email