[QUIC] draft-shade-quic-http2-mapping comments
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> Fri, 22 July 2016 13:07 UTC
Return-Path: <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
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 E861C12D621 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 06:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=d3+jM/9s; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=d3+jM/9s
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 DEgZxcCNvyUT for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 06:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (mail.greenbytes.de [5.10.171.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0616B12D5E7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 06:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 117) id 56E6A15A041A; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:07:18 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1469192838; bh=hhWJ2t053rxuwrJIASFI4UjPH2FZnn180+Gols+nb84=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=d3+jM/9sRIkRRkmxMFBdwEihykXZlAtJeFvbWMSE9bVwWo5DLUxoegGFETF8ooDGt Gi7ixAqjCEfcwK6Ud3MBQzcZtRR7fG9oIezaXIcb6k9njhybQxB3isousSlE7EyfQ2 Km1EdZyjwf+e38DWvMKadSd6ZIcXEdQ0OG5ho6YM=
Received: from [192.168.43.32] (unknown [89.204.139.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BC4D15A041A; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:06:49 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1469192838; bh=hhWJ2t053rxuwrJIASFI4UjPH2FZnn180+Gols+nb84=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=d3+jM/9sRIkRRkmxMFBdwEihykXZlAtJeFvbWMSE9bVwWo5DLUxoegGFETF8ooDGt Gi7ixAqjCEfcwK6Ud3MBQzcZtRR7fG9oIezaXIcb6k9njhybQxB3isousSlE7EyfQ2 Km1EdZyjwf+e38DWvMKadSd6ZIcXEdQ0OG5ho6YM=
To: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, quic@ietf.org
References: <CAGD1bZYWgZDkXhsdSVz9k47DiPjiW+TJomfZ9A1yeA6mAEzZ1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Message-ID: <d8af823c-0877-8c65-347f-edc3966fc3dd@greenbytes.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:54:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGD1bZYWgZDkXhsdSVz9k47DiPjiW+TJomfZ9A1yeA6mAEzZ1g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/tqt5ygbk7EVPPyQ0dmVmK6hOv2w>
Subject: [QUIC] draft-shade-quic-http2-mapping comments
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list to discuss QUIC standardization <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: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:07:23 -0000
Hi there, thanks for splitting the documents. Here are some early comments on draft-shade-quic-http2-mapping. At some point we'll need to decide what HTTP/2-over-Quic is. Is it just a mapping to a different mapping to a different transport, or is it the next major revision of HTTP, thus essentially HTTP/3. I'm asking because these seem to be conflicting goals, and it would be good to clarify that as soon as possible. That said: The slides showed in the IETF Berlin Bof session specifically mentioned that a client success rate of 93% might be good enough (or close to that), as we can always fall back to HTTP/2-over-TLS. I do not disagree with that, but it essentially means that the client-visible semantics MUST be the same as for HTTP/2 (in particular as HTTP/2 over TLS in theory could fall back to HTTP/1.1 over TLS). The impact of this might be different for a browser such as Chrome compare to other users of HTTP. Now looking at Section 2, "QUIC advertisement", specifically: > 2. QUIC advertisement > > A server advertises that it can speak HTTP/2-over-QUIC via the Alt- > Svc HTTP response header. It does so by including the header in any > response sent over a non-QUIC (e.g. HTTP/2 over TLS) connection: > > Alt-Svc: quic=":443" Well, you'd need to register an ALPN identifiers "quic" for that. The problem is that (AFAIU) APLN tokens in theory are used to negotiate protocols over TLS, which is not the case here. I know that there are precedents with that, but if we really want to turn ALPN identifiers into a generic protocol negotiation mechanism, we really should talk to the TLS WG and potentially revise RFC 7301. (Alternatively, we could revise Alt-Svc, in which case you should talk to the HTTPbis WG). > In addition, the list of QUIC versions supported by the server can be > specified by the v= parameter. For example, if a server supported > both version 33 and 34 it would specify the following header: > > Alt-Svc: quic=":443"; v="34,33" That would require registration in the "Alt-Svc Parameter Registry" (RFC 7838, Section 7.3). That said, while working on HTTP/2 we did *not* use the final ALPN token, but just used the draft names as tokens; that seems to be much simpler, more robust, and doesn't require (a) registering an extension parameter and (b) properly parsing it. > ... Best regards, Julian
- [QUIC] New set of QUIC drafts Jana Iyengar
- Re: [QUIC] draft-shade-quic-http2-mapping comments Martin Thomson
- Re: [QUIC] draft-shade-quic-http2-mapping comments Mark Nottingham
- [QUIC] draft-shade-quic-http2-mapping comments Julian Reschke