From nobody Tue Mar 22 20:04:27 2022 Return-Path: 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 626AC3A0BF0; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:04:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 OSV-5OBqn4SH; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk1-xa30.google.com (mail-vk1-xa30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a30]) (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 82CCD3A0BEE; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk1-xa30.google.com with SMTP id m84so179224vke.1; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:04:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CcTNVVloyGc1Kz1Jmo3S7lpSgmqFO4iaSpee2fnjdc0=; b=ZA0tz3OrkP15e2ZHBk11AAhMC7YmHBq4Wo5ZXSD+d0J26+belGA4oUJpXW+RnYK1Wv S6YSryLarAInv6J38Ff2GQggThWOwIHn8ds3+WhU0YpI2Afm5EBeWvGlDDCslhKK0p2C 01ysPprF4FC1uxJRJ6SX0e1wSPITrTHTqDzum64vwJ2gJBR0KoEAXx+11O6bTrLxOJWo HDhi79EyszJwl2FxRhRm4zxtmqW9Vm3MI9R5rPW8NZYIuaIJdwc0p6u/RdS72+L8Fm38 amlk7MCPt4FASTVkqC8QrXgJdXYlrZcPKao9gSyu6MVhgvf40+ZdUrbqPQTvatiUNh7P yZ7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CcTNVVloyGc1Kz1Jmo3S7lpSgmqFO4iaSpee2fnjdc0=; b=n7AZHmz9FAM9LGNXiF8IRubtZOQMLY3PV/9sIXaxrrRsV94x7rs6Qa4l5F7uMY685d dmTHBfwRf215XJb2BfhyiuiF2LVqkUF5bnOGR+Oe2iTS1ZXJn8Pvl+yFnaXOpkfzJH3y CBQuVK03FzSNkz07z/OgUyLaK/DgV00kSufZVDwx0OlumIDjMtTMKeyrixPpI5TuJe/C y2nEbpfJRnyTeh5rYNTMPChw+OxWbwca10reNkJaBXEV2VcX3DqF0ESqC85O3JioyH90 XiKjh4N8jmKnzM3kANFwhLO6zhtTZQuTFOcS+jEEklO7ff8ZXN9rapDBua99QyHKsu8y wxhw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5332ULSTOzag1VjB+NeECNtYxiLoHRB5ruKFtlsYkrquerIK6XuM WdQYffsDNeX2HP/C31SFCL5jhH5pAB+YTcYJ8VTBgbRjV6c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkdatXGlGcnGMzyOHkfngkDd9yg9OimeJI4STgOAQnXqJ7aH5ya8USWkNgpMNpiBGZXTU9vDIrVk1Bh5MOmN0= X-Received: by 2002:ac5:c811:0:b0:33f:8e5a:34f9 with SMTP id y17-20020ac5c811000000b0033f8e5a34f9mr485387vkl.13.1648004651646; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:04:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8428BD40-8BE1-4C61-8547-203EFCBCD3DF@heapingbits.net> <345300A7-256B-4524-8CBD-16629951C837@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <345300A7-256B-4524-8CBD-16629951C837@mnot.net> From: Bernard Aboba Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 23:04:00 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mark Nottingham Cc: Christopher Wood , WebTransport , ietf-http-wg@w3.org, MASQUE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d982bc05dad9fbce" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Webtransport] WGLC for draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram X-BeenThere: webtransport@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: WebTransport WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 03:04:24 -0000 --000000000000d982bc05dad9fbce Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mark -- I can understand your reaction (a number of similar thoughts ran through my head while reading the document). At the same time, the MASQUE charter is pretty clear about the scope of work and the draft limits itself to that scope (see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/masque/about/ ). So I'm not clear how far the document can go in addressing your concerns. Also, the mechanism described is utilized by other documents developed in other WGs such as WebTransport. Trying to summarize those other documents in this one probably wouldn't work well either. So I suspect that the best that can be done might be a paragraph or two of context. On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:49 PM Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hi Chris et al, > > I've had a read-through of the document, thanks. > > The first thing that I noticed is that the specification is very obviously > written from the perspective of someone who's very deep into the details of > HTTP/3 and QUIC, and is either confusing or silent about how this relates > to HTTP as a protocol overall. If this is going to be a new, > version-independent feature of HTTP, I think we should specify it as one in > the first instance -- especially given how poorly past attempts have failed > when they weren't well-integrated (e.g., push). > > So, I think it needs a non-trivial rewrite that shouldn't affect > implementations, but unfortunately will affect the editors. I'm willing to > work on a PR if that'd be helpful -- but it may take a bit of time to get > right. Would that work for you/them? > > Once that happens, I think it'll be easier to evaluate the technical > content. If I understand it correctly, I have no problem with the > on-the-wire details, although the capsule protocol feels like premature > abstraction at this point. Could someone speak to the thinking behind it? > > Cheers, > > > > On 22 Mar 2022, at 4:38 am, Christopher Wood > wrote: > > > > (Cross-posting to MASQUE, HTTPBIS, and WebTransport) > > > > This email initiates the WGLC for draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram, located > here: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/ > > > > Please review the document and send any comments to the MASQUE mailing > list. HTTPBIS and WebTransport are cc'd given the overlap in technology. > > > > This call will conclude on April 8. > > > > Best, > > Chris and Eric > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Webtransport mailing list > Webtransport@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport > --000000000000d982bc05dad9fbce Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark --

I can understand your reaction = (a number of similar thoughts ran through=C2=A0my head while reading the do= cument). At the same time, the MASQUE charter is pretty clear about the sco= pe of work and the draft limits itself to that scope (see:=C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org= /wg/masque/about/ ).=C2=A0 So I'm not clear how far the document ca= n go in addressing your concerns.=C2=A0

Also, the = mechanism described is utilized by other documents developed in other WGs s= uch as WebTransport.=C2=A0 Trying to summarize those other documents in thi= s one probably wouldn't work well either.=C2=A0

So I suspect that the best that can be done might be a paragraph or two o= f context.=C2=A0

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:49 PM Mark Nottingham <<= a href=3D"mailto:mnot@mnot.net">mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
Hi Chris et al,

I've had a read-through of the document, thanks.

The first thing that I noticed is that the specification is very obviously = written from the perspective of someone who's very deep into the detail= s of HTTP/3 and QUIC, and is either confusing or silent about how this rela= tes to HTTP as a protocol overall. If this is going to be a new, version-in= dependent feature of HTTP, I think we should specify it as one in the first= instance -- especially given how poorly past attempts have failed when the= y weren't well-integrated (e.g., push).

So, I think it needs a non-trivial rewrite that shouldn't affect implem= entations, but unfortunately will affect the editors. I'm willing to wo= rk on a PR if that'd be helpful -- but it may take a bit of time to get= right. Would that work for you/them?

Once that happens, I think it'll be easier to evaluate the technical co= ntent. If I understand it correctly, I have no problem with the on-the-wire= details, although the capsule protocol feels like premature abstraction at= this point. Could someone speak to the thinking behind it?

Cheers,


> On 22 Mar 2022, at 4:38 am, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> wrote:
>
> (Cross-posting to MASQUE, HTTPBIS, and WebTransport)
>
> This email initiates the WGLC for draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram, locat= ed here:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.= ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/
>
> Please review the document and send any comments to the MASQUE mailing= list. HTTPBIS and WebTransport are cc'd given the overlap in technolog= y.
>
> This call will conclude on April 8.
>
> Best,
> Chris and Eric

--
Mark Nottingham=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.mnot.net/

--
Webtransport mailing list
Webtransport@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport=
--000000000000d982bc05dad9fbce--