Re: [Webtransport] Measuring the friction of Http3Transport

I'll concede that "non-generic" is not a fair description and what I should
have said is "web transport specific". That being said, the current
Http3Transport draft is fairly easy to implement and I don't think that it
poses a significant barrier for adoption.

I think my problem is that I'm extrapolating the Http3Transport design in
my head to deal with other issues. Let me file those issues to see if they
make sense and how they could be resolved instead of jumping to conclusions.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:37 AM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:34 AM Luke Curley <kixelated@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We're on the same page that there's code in HTTP/3 that could be
>> leveraged for QuicTransport in the form of the header parsing. I think
>> there's a path to merge QuicTransport and Http3Transport by leveraging
>> HTTP/3 for the handshake and QUIC for stream delivery.
>>
>> My primary concern is that Http3Transport requires non-generic
>> modifications to the HTTP/3 layer mostly to support connection pooling. I'm
>> worried that this will limit support for Http3Transport and complicates any
>> HTTP/3 implementation that does support it.
>>
>
> Hi Luke,
>
> I'm curious, could you elaborate on what these "non-generic modifications
> to the HTTP/3 layer" are please?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 4:49 AM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Luke,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, 12:26 Luke Curley, <kixelated@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, when I say "QuicTransport is simpler" I really mean
>>>> "QuicTransport has greater interoperability". You can take any QUIC
>>>> implementation (+ datagram extension) and add a thin layer to support
>>>> QuicTransport. It's a nice layering of protocols and it's something that I
>>>> want to see in general as QUIC replaces TCP.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the sentiment. But given the
>>> development of QUIC its kind of surprising that people would find it easier
>>> to identify an implementation that supports QUIC and datagram but does not
>>> support HTTP/3.
>>>
>>> Thr situation for a more clean-room implementation is different, I
>>> agree. However, by the time you've done all the hard stuff with QUIC, a
>>> very focused HTTP/3 layer ends up quite thin too. You can ignore dynamic
>>> compression, server push and extensibility points.
>>>
>>> I also see the current design being the thin end of the wedge. The
>>> proposal I linked talks about HTTP-like header parsing. So its "just" a
>>> thin layer to do some parsing. Then folks will probably want some want to
>>> tweak parameter, acontrol channel, a way to do graceful close, a sprinkle
>>> of GREASE. To extrapolate forward, what would be the delta be between some
>>> final product QuicTransport and HTTP/3. Too small a delta and we've wasted
>>> years of effort.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Lucas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 3:16 AM Lucas Pardue <
>>>> lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> To follow up on one thread of discussion during IETF 109. To over
>>>>> simplify what we've heard a few folks say, they prefer QuicTransport
>>>>> because it simpler and they don't need pooling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to push more on this, what is the measurable complexity of
>>>>> HTTP/3 over QUIC plus a new application mapping that needs to be defined?
>>>>> Let's isolate pooling as a variable and ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Victor mentioned his proposal for a unified header semantic across all
>>>>> transports, this is
>>>>> https://github.com/ietf-wg-webtrans/draft-ietf-webtrans-overview/pull/4/files.
>>>>> Taking a closer look at it, I have some concerns that I added as comments.
>>>>> HTTP has semantics for a reason. If QuicTransport is going to start
>>>>> borrowing HTTP piecemeal, I really wonder how simple people might feel it
>>>>> is. I think it's important to avoid something that looks like HTTP but
>>>>> behaves differently. Is it really much of a stretch to just do HTTP/3 but
>>>>> give it a different ALPN so that we avoid problems related to
>>>>> cross-protocol pooling?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Lucas
>>>>> --
>>>>> Webtransport mailing list
>>>>> Webtransport@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
>>>>>
>>>> --
>> Webtransport mailing list
>> Webtransport@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
>>
>