IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webtransport] Confirming Consensus on WebTransport protocols

Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com> Thu, 14 January 2021 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilvv@google.com>
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 B5B853A1378 for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:02:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.971
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.373, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 TzHaXHBlSyV3 for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:02:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (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 B10683A135C for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id y22so5557903ljn.9 for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:02:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XhhLo2XYDnDNCRWAyjU9S3idZecyXs27jRh8oZk8nmc=; b=uM7neUYNCykY2ZLurJ7xnNXms42B6BQmgh6IYS6aPF/kC6oG3hxPfVbSDw07i6Gpq7 gwXb3ZJktLX/MC+KpQn9Tu31bKq11KjUTEfKNeBVIHhZe5BkWgSV0FTolVGN6+WyYxlq /zgsCOQQSaEqXnYt0ws6GsyKFchzddOP5xLsFl07ncgCpq5JtlOA1eCrBG1pVIEkjXWh +92IinxFQrC+EhxLc/7fi1PbZT20B7A/v1HjvbasHAemCVYLiULdHnBiwFVvnBm5wHln YEFQMDyqmBOWs7xRLwZRYkSplu0Km0mT4kzxZPBA+KiwkL9hJcXhaURxuB9JvDI/BbEA 5YUQ==
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=XhhLo2XYDnDNCRWAyjU9S3idZecyXs27jRh8oZk8nmc=; b=Qtc+jjmx2sVBmK5d77nXXo+2KwsabI02ZyddS/xXPzb92Q2mbwcMtvvxealduR+Vv6 0S2UgxojwoCt+zZrMV9RUJg1ip9e3dFrPwAllYeFB0F19llm9EDVMO9oP7NA9nneDlFw S7c62mezca9Qi1xGULe0qSPZlXopBUI9AEQ9Ulojr0PzBTu41wVZ0qrVAWAw0kRY+lTw eC5QCTFYVcWKly+jrvqAEGC/COswtEZfiD96iNdTfOLB4UiHGQlQ28x/0/IjCo8Xscxr EjgUlbWCVCJ6v6jIgF6Q6PBo5ks6GRHZfg2EgokeWEdOWOV9PlGJEr1134KXnUgnQ4Su dHyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533K+pD5qclk+dvpCRrZDRe6qYf00CcfigvMpIfO+dYwI7IFmlwW baCCpDGlLalLcidfGtwG6DF0AYgSjJujIlpqJ8gN6KpFbbQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyB7z6MjS4hRk/ahpRwdxPO+dL2RuzNBEZVvPqTR4GUkItm2kYOI2KaqowTDP62BXBc6bmg6rQa9TpOKGbEFgY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b5d8:: with SMTP id g24mr2864550ljn.50.1610614925336; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:02:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPDSy+5R=v2GjyJU1o=+Ai0X0iOqJSX787GfLBSUkd9odR++Rw@mail.gmail.com> <1003bdcf-dc36-47ce-a4f5-dcfd9b2146b8@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1003bdcf-dc36-47ce-a4f5-dcfd9b2146b8@www.fastmail.com>
From: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 04:01:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAZdMafTH73XmtKnr7ZpScT4aL2OvfjcKy1mEEXBSMDQBqAxCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: WebTransport <webtransport@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007f2d1d05b8d88277"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webtransport/TEmcXCHeSpry4G-DMm_RJK9iah4>
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: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 09:02:11 -0000

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 7:02 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> 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?
>

>From my perspective, it's mostly because QuicTransport has been just an
incremental reinvention of HTTP from scratch.


> > 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.
>

HTTP pooling is an optimization, so I don't believe it is ever actively
required.

Most of the objections to using HTTP as a transport come from a perceived
requirement to support pooling.  Even outside of design complexity related
to flow control and prioritization, there are cases where web developers
actively benefit from not using pooling (using connection-level stats or
congestion control state for things like ABR).  I believe that it should be
possible to enable/disable pooling WebTransport as a part of settings
negotiation, and I am currently trying to figure out the details of how to
do that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email