[Webtransport] Comment(s) on draft-vvv-webtransport-overview

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

Reading the WebTransport Protocol Framework, a few questions came to mind.

Section 3

"Since this data can be replayed by attackers, it MUST NOT be used unless
the client has explicitly requested 0-RTT"

[BA] While draft-pauly-quic-interface has the concept of "Send Idempotent"
which makes data eligible for sending under 0-RTT keys, the WebTransport
API (https://wicg.github.io/web-transport/) has no equivalent.  Is support
for 0-RTT a desired feature?

Section 4

"All transport protocols MUST provide datagrams, unidirectional and
bidirectional streams i order to make the transport protocols
easily interchangeable."

[BA] Are there a set of requirements for "fallback transport" as well?

5.

"buffers for them should be small and prioritized over stream data"

[BA] Are you envisaging absolute priority here (e.g. datagrams can starve
out stream data)?

"In general, the transport should not apply aggregation algorithms (e.g.,
Nagle's algorithm [RFC0896]) to datagrams."

 [BA] draft-pauly-quic-datagram Section 5 says "This frame SHOULD be sent
as as soon as possible, and MAY be coalesced with other frames".  Are there
situations in which coalescing/aggregation is envisaged to be desirable so
that API support is needed?  Also was this intended to be SHOULD NOT?


NITs

1. Introduction

Where should comments be sent?  Presumably to [e-mail] and/or
a github repo?

1.1

s/in practice, its user/in practice, its use/

2.

"a mechanism such as ICE [RFC8445] can be used"

[BA] You might want to refer to ICE consent [RFC7675] instead of ICE.  But
since this is the WebTransport Protocol Framework (e.g. client/server) I'm
not sure why ICE need be mentioned.

7.

"the client must not be able to distinguish"

[BA] should this be MUST NOT?