IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP Delays

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 12 January 2021 15:43 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 4B8D93A0977 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:43:22 -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 HOvB33pEyaDE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (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 E358E3A096C for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id z5so4926038iob.11 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:43:20 -0800 (PST)
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=RDiJ08k0n/Yxl4dFhjXOycwurjDcv9E5ERjqzU8VhaQ=; b=s81CiHxFZRHtiCpSW/6WT/qYrdurV79mAYlTS7kmE8hIMBA7xQQCzoHRCDsxrIgdLN UAoaRdv1TXmF+TnrFqe/3Hh+xsexGBhgLtiCbF2M2B9vJ4DVACxf+YDIb5RX5W/uTAz4 Bd1GhU7cdymGGYxnAUJi9ZunZf1P/XJyRTEAF8FkPdt3Eb3S2gm+Hvme/4Z1Xj1oWRjZ 9/VzIQdnPHaXEazistrUXspTKshoVZyk2aSpqT7Y5SvHHxy0KwNk3hFTFUehjczGFwZw bEKP6t0+pxyDjyf7cYzonwbgOsLtYhVtAemncUVJypIcyHjdcvjLT0R/3vfsT2Fv2DWQ JVjw==
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=RDiJ08k0n/Yxl4dFhjXOycwurjDcv9E5ERjqzU8VhaQ=; b=OgRxkTMWAjKYhj3ET1c5kQLhbAKlkYqWN5agjjXm9+RIygLd+p3xsIl/RBH4JI6+E+ owg+EgrhT/EG9hROcwpwxaRo5kuAOgAFqqEoLnvVQ1wyaMbVqRjtkZ7Qt04qt4hzUWrf mPR9RKNsu/AuZWOU5EVWu1ptvZFLeyD1px0tAr7G00wPjPwi+JHyK2+3pdppkbo7Mih3 xr8g10PuIPeZrF3Go4EtnJoKx2k2NHjXRDudNvlcIU8rXePV57PcqqkkmHnGgFA2Hjfr gJqdR0qGnrv/GNAedUUviQnqkx5fGn0ApqhhRecJgVSjOPVrUEZRAQ2HNCgL+MBZih6/ imXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PBc7OBM8cUId2grKvfmrOjM3dpW4BxpNMh75ODqZSrWgqe6AM 0H0m5QvgIcy270yLm79U55lH+6qXpMXWsdB6QAc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxEMNkMQFXgJ8O/kAC86e9hBxAToRKpJh4uLGGfEWm2mhteEtFBBxUnhor/U1dXT2dQdNhcwjm6OCmt35XrGyc=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:a88a:: with SMTP id l10mr4669027jam.95.1610466200131; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:43:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxSObWwLfzRWazAg+Q+9=BHGzXaSSduONozHF_zGCqC-kg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMA++3QYnXiVwuKSPZDYycERRrC11b-jHTG6JcyjngDhqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMA++3QYnXiVwuKSPZDYycERRrC11b-jHTG6JcyjngDhqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:43:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQ9w0h2-rZ1ynhEMKAxwq0gfSVJtfGXV8ydGdUTEefMuA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HTTP Delays
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c831b405b8b5e1f5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/eNx1EawDS-C6BpuchxJdU2g_DeE>
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, 12 Jan 2021 15:43:22 -0000

Ted,

This would be great. However, though I'm not an expert at all,
http-semantics is deeply integrated into quic-http, and at 200+ pages is
reasonably likely to have a small edit here and there. I'm skeptical we can
ship HTTP/3 without this anchor firmly lodged.

But I'm happy to be corrected by people with more knowledge of both
documents!

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:04 PM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> The easiest way to handle this would be to have those included in the
> downref registry.  That would allow the documents to proceed with a
> reference to the drafts, rather than the final RFCs.  If the ADs are
> confident that the -chache and -semantics will not change the elements that
> are referenced by QUIC, then a second last call that highlights that point
> (and basically nothing else) will unstick this.
>
> As someone has been waiting for cluster 238 for quite a while now, I am a
> big fan of not trying to wait until everything can go lockstep.  The
> benefits have definitely not outweighed the costs for C238, and I don't
> think they would here.  Downref it and go on with publication.
>
> Just my opinion, of course.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:57 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>

v2.20.0 | Report a Bug | By Email