IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webtransport] Confirming Consensus on WebTransport protocols

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Wed, 13 January 2021 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Original-To: webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78133A1497 for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:02:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=lowentropy.net header.b=XEbevR9W; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=CZltQ2c3
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 NO7E2UQH5q9f for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82EBB3A1492 for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E051F5C04BB for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:02:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:02:25 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=pZV+DNJRSPOgqEpNkU/NnsdthVS9RQK GnloO1MVGRJ0=; b=XEbevR9WCVQQTK08kRoPWdwRWrNj2yWCYfkFsTtf24cD5ut HPu5nyA7Eo74M+el6ZrWqoxWX22ysSkkOi/e4t9tHRrvTCZfLbRNi5d8H8T1QfD2 WEhPPBj9en6l1YCOVrKaB9Lg8sMb1P230uX/aja3fEDtfMDNPb5t9WhwEg+9dSBs jXFkDQR7gJ7GY2+2NEvTtVoY+wuUi3L3IXzuBe6EL6wbX5k1dJ5/SGTuU0eRp/VR sjd+Z2pE8a9JCWarZZI3l2KBpqhc3NT5YgbsP4hliXKvo//wT6md+xLzmQLTK/Ig tarSb6FfbZaNGDFryoR+fCeZxBIzXsS/UjyO1oQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=pZV+DN JRSPOgqEpNkU/NnsdthVS9RQKGnloO1MVGRJ0=; b=CZltQ2c3AYBlkQXkwKmvHi pDqynD9eNri8+L8y4KzzEHyNczJcXcUyVzh9paTKtVSXpInCVmRlnTzVsGm1om/g 9EOCWCyGLOLczW5qjgo3DVtb98NPX9lfQI8HQtSoiBMNuZEAmvxvEOqa6Q7yfUtR S7vCe9S0nEYaPAVoMiTptFInsNhD+7s+zspC67MAoFhThaYD/RAqKUCR+Ja4C0pN 1vVNHINaQrXsXlAu4NMOVfNx9R90ai7B4s/9RFOj3MIb+d/I3v2YwDlnPCYPBPtr 7WHaPD6P89/YuGkZUscZF7oZp0DxWrT+fZDhv9a9rPW2QIip90h2+Y1xK/cwXjqg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:kTj-X0VDNOdUbqgnTZ5vOPqphEEpFtJaEACf3LthtZVK_F0I7j_bBA> <xme:kTj-X4m-QodqaPYHIVIcRA7qIg3ht6-Ix7MtWuha2NPIHbTZA7a9cw3wewolX5o3z mDrVXiBJRqopSICKzY>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedukedrtddugddukecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohif vghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeetueeikedtkeelfeekve fhkeffvedvvefgkefgleeugfdvjeejgeffieegtdejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:kTj-X4aORvrzsPB_h5r54Ltr5GhFqpWZQTnQ1SBx6sBdrkn8HB0Byg> <xmx:kTj-XzV_gtCgSNuy9ocAYlIdngzx4AZgT9Rf5uSMtQrcUyP4zLrc_Q> <xmx:kTj-X-mL-XwTRTx7Gf4vSWuFQrM6A4m4hrCijqIy5OZoyDlSi6kYgg> <xmx:kTj-X6zxzWPPm8AAw41Y2W3PVomWL_2nqxcrrLuxi7pfwLniVMP7ag>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9A6892007E; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:02:25 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-45-g4839256-fm-20210104.001-g48392560
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <1003bdcf-dc36-47ce-a4f5-dcfd9b2146b8@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+5R=v2GjyJU1o=+Ai0X0iOqJSX787GfLBSUkd9odR++Rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPDSy+5R=v2GjyJU1o=+Ai0X0iOqJSX787GfLBSUkd9odR++Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:02:05 +1100
From: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: webtransport@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webtransport/31x7jjNa22hJqDVxT9eDwlL6rOQ>
Subject: Re: [Webtransport] Confirming Consensus on WebTransport protocols
X-BeenThere: webtransport@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <webtransport.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webtransport>, <mailto:webtransport-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/webtransport/>
List-Post: <mailto:webtransport@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webtransport-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport>, <mailto:webtransport-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:02:28 -0000

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021, at 04:25, David Schinazi wrote:
> The consensus was option 1A.

Great!

> The consensus was option 2A.

I can live with that.  Can I request a brief summary of the reasons?
 
> Additionally, we discussed pooling and decided that we would
> not allow pooling in WebTransport over HTTP/3 for now, due
> to the complexities of pooling.

I don't think that this group gets to say that.  If we are using HTTP, then we are using HTTP.  We might decide that in browsers we want to keep the connections separate for $reasons, but I am opposed to saying that.

Unless of course I'm missing context in the same way I missed the meeting.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email