Re: H3 ALPN?

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 28 April 2021 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@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 F08883A0CCE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:29:08 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 xHRb8P0KNZte for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 6E7243A0CCB for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id q2so11910339pfk.9 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:29:04 -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=znKUUHotRDVwLZC8ksBZOZ3Ag9otXVapLmleOoIdazc=; b=MBsh8gyG3GUSH4qJMvKDxyiix0IfRJg2py8l3rzNQNE1o5TZfubp3akacN0s74sHj5 mcWv/4y9PWp9n6ko+wVej1fJV3jPnYOr7ygnAWxY7pjELwpOht9VdnmA5DxujYTiyaAi ECc+s9Ay1SbMS/1QxiL3yI20kO3dy7fQThIV9a8XrG98nI2sl5U1qf958pnoG1o0KyBh 7tAb7AkfxN4dbFnS+tU/2Ee8gDeQKz8HovPRbOi2uUyuUyDrbWhWNbtmnJbOMh47T/4J sq2HmfR+1PpC25aKmLybPeV3hNxoGG4HaizMctQRC1OZDi9NCaIprDEWdlwBo+q5laln UXKg==
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=znKUUHotRDVwLZC8ksBZOZ3Ag9otXVapLmleOoIdazc=; b=PWL9PwF1rS70PnTy8wvtYxLJfl4RsduirIDZYUVUHarxQ/SfzpoVZOx3FurrlKwBzd tbRnGK+TCHGq+cvImmBVmf0OEt6iE3oGrQlITqGH1xRSfvgoXRy0hwB2+H6O9tz1VxQt tet19LTs11kzHiXh9d/fiOAJlmsHwvcGFkwWoNDhcNPFqEjoMc8otDDOdtKznWvaLGVt e0u9lAUaD/SN7XoVRGmyaB3bCc98IgmrzVTZItRqlpA4DroWKBIWKcLELjeG9iRjy7p1 EBr2OyVnNooFhLH4KUYeCtcO//OL4kU0hr2dRiEKAPrJu4E1KfJzYiDlkr2jBVPN31Ek HRsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QjXYf69mBq5+Y+ykli04dWfzT8HQN/fJKAfM2kfBfu8NGjTRq ik3IvTZtpF9thoUhFq+dCfGKOic4AXZpJQm6zQI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydX2CylEjrT2zi6WgA6pILlssAsbHcg+PEF54JAy0fYOPQDdMAoZLxw9ApOxZMhlDxpK6WgCJzr6Fo5V6k+Q8=
X-Received: by 2002:a65:61a1:: with SMTP id i1mr27074868pgv.411.1619620143127; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:29:03 -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: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:28:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+4hLDqt0=4qVMLKNMDj0P7Hg908pn48P2g490TsAR-avg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: H3 ALPN?
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004d5dae05c1093339"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/wraGUNHUksleecXEqDTUmTorNrU>
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, 28 Apr 2021 14:29:09 -0000

That works for me. Could we get official WG consensus on this?

David

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 7:27 AM 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.
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>