IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webtransport] Confirming consensus calls from today's WebTransport interim

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Fri, 21 May 2021 01:37 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 042543A0BF1 for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 May 2021 18:37:44 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=lowentropy.net header.b=MEDuHcRn; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=h8bj8HpJ
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 0Sn_lZWypq5h for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 May 2021 18:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B787F3A0BDF for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2021 18:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9415C00AE for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:37:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 May 2021 21:37:37 -0400
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=fm2; bh=lv9RvBy62t1mafcISW03EIbiO7Jv2h9 MnfGtxVyv9Hg=; b=MEDuHcRnOcOag+IMtAw4tEYOEcfn7uG1bUZ9IEG9/bPiMAS Mu1IjJkVqC0Bhu03w3FB6Sm+4AkXQemDGH3kjaQMS6OwITA6++UiY9bpIpOnbALa 6CtmKPWDYWOS+U7uC3rN1t6FowbL5pmFKzD5h9Q++75fn93SRPiqnPG0vnPWHWJv Ba8NREZHGHjezxUFIh3FhBWhU9Bak0/1rJ3zppl6gtffYYPi6AxuheFuYRNtWGg7 LL0kEMpmclV9JwxyxlCHdLhUW17UmfAouaPPXYp7/ZUQfm4p0uA4zJDOFKGKNctb DvpVcqVI5BSMtTPOqIDTaOKszCmBLkm4wyx+/Uw==
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=fm2; bh=lv9RvB y62t1mafcISW03EIbiO7Jv2h9MnfGtxVyv9Hg=; b=h8bj8HpJISngsUpilaUs0R MNr5Lk0eKcetAOrHnZADJ6Vx0vu7m39oaL7cXSdprPeOp7f5jfzVzNxPHExyAaMj OHkK2tKZRno5PczWVQe2NBKRHkBKiGBiw1rWsHOe3uBwUt3Ea/Y0FamILIl2ORPz 7xicxVxjqydwVAlLt1a8KlmzgwmHpaIp1oG6CQ9Tkqw7UJJ4hTLN7X4xgKmHuqRN 4WryQD3RR0XN3bvYOy9O7ym/IYkqa2YDWYqKv6C2BtB/Twuq97ynTuJSkp8I5ikn O3T0O/TKpBNioO4TwmOantE4svns8PGrmuyRRLiS+/rPm7mfE3JxQdeeg9J3nE5Q ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:4Q6nYAGgo7zyqd58OWgRUtQijc3lWGrvb8tKIJbBcoUuaD6qHkMczw> <xme:4Q6nYJUiTvoJkl3ii5gVhdKI7WQWgq96VH14vocNO-qb5cxp9TGQlQhiNam2_XUAz eA_Lb9HNlf2Mu-yGLk>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdejvddggeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegudfhieetgefgvddute dugeelgeffjeffjeekhefhudehjefhvdejuedvjeevueenucffohhmrghinhephhhtthhp vdhsthhrvggrmhgtrhgvrghtihhonhhmvggthhgrnhhitghsrdhimhenucevlhhushhtvg hrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhho phihrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:4Q6nYKLvEtUMFKz2lJ_syv_GOggMhMSD6EUk4UyoosLWAoZPjAwvBw> <xmx:4Q6nYCEAl2YPhsg_n4ksr7JCci6tEvYrQlnKKK0NcGk-6nGOBxXF6A> <xmx:4Q6nYGV4GFFCsQpGIBthhGM_19s7vCMHqdzlgi9vlsTvdwhNne_hTA> <xmx:4Q6nYOip7TyMPzW9m1-vl-ukvU_HFt2e9HmyAjxBH5B7eE9NAEPpEw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5ECE34E00A4; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:37:37 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-448-gae190416c7-fm-20210505.004-gae190416
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <cce29e58-da55-4cc1-b760-4ee1c849c035@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+5s-D7v3jxFmWKD5N-=sVcM_v8ZmB1iVNjZ1ZuHN5n=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPDSy+5s-D7v3jxFmWKD5N-=sVcM_v8ZmB1iVNjZ1ZuHN5n=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 11:37:19 +1000
From: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: webtransport@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webtransport/9UTHfytP3s44zy19PEwDCl7MDRA>
Subject: Re: [Webtransport] =?utf-8?q?Confirming_consensus_calls_from_today?= =?utf-8?q?=27s_WebTransport_interim?=
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: Fri, 21 May 2021 01:37:45 -0000

As I was happily asleep for this conversation...

On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 08:26, David Schinazi wrote:
> Question 3: Do you believe that the WebTransport WG should adopt
> draft-kinnear-webtransport-http2?
>     3A: Yes, adopt
>     3B: No, do not adopt
> The consensus was 3A.

I have no qualms with the other items, but I have some questions about this.

Did the discussion address questions of functional difference between this design and the HTTP/3-based design?  The way that this works is subtly different in ways that are not limited to just the unavoidable differences (that is, reliability and ordered delivery).  To a large extent this is grounded in attempting to use HTTP/2 stream creation mechanics.

I'm opposed to adoption of this document.  I don't believe that it can be made so due to some fundamental differences in how HTTP/2 and QUIC stream states.

If this problem was acknowledged, then I have every confidence that the people listed as authors are able to find a solution.  But generally adoption is about the document more than the people.  Adoption means agreeing that the document contains approximately the right shape for a solution.  I can't agree with that in this case.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email