Re: [Webtransport] Confirming Consensus on WebTransport protocols

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 28 January 2021 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.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 AFC013A0FEB for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:17:06 -0800 (PST)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=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 Ki95Unv6orgH for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:17:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (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 C85463A0FDA for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id i7so2980314pgc.8 for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:17:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=D2M4kBdLX5OWFSkm3EaGsqyAAhYiyAdT5+33NqEc1/M=; b=sasHDZlGx26tKQA4lqIm/v8qHum0/hoUyQRKTpgdCRQVQ5wv5SUFxGFMU70XBsOEz1 eGMe2Nd4IN4/4UEn/DY98x2IB+t1h9dIbQkIPdfvqM6AzsurK8W02+KZBeJmM+Zm04VT Bg41foFVs9JI28f3vjWHkvxjISv3jOy6ankLJTSOFnzc/UvY15d/dcP7M31HoON96K8D IYg+Vt9I8ljSeBLqnOmb96YLOTiupTSIR/KiS0W+ZVk9roAQzbD0XT8KCr3JB8myYXo/ X0f15eEHeO13cl+UjQP0lxIoM/L6dwHtzRnJZqc+l66og8QoJ7TkqrY6rLv+TiVrLTgg Zq7g==
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; bh=D2M4kBdLX5OWFSkm3EaGsqyAAhYiyAdT5+33NqEc1/M=; b=cH5lwRJna6s00BXqSQwazqFdWMql6jVBSVJu2MCdcZ+GRQXAey38PKH5oy9IZqigke xeiBgB3pI24bPGKhYZvxLPpzX2zJJJRNC8faVgmXm1tKIlHG7E2vfYXFWFDFM7ktlXCf ETh4+/Haen+5SDtPCV/TtfF9maRB5ZlRyhuHo5glRM3GkBH30xRcmZYOw2CBLgtRO6jF YF9qsMaMCJGsSbd9zdnOSiGls3xscZjdXTOzg7Wbh+5U8BJ610/o0ZbEQwsI3CkdL1LI z07c03yec2ug+pXtpBMGjzC1PkSngnzDi13nC2RpCZ5UwoVzXKuMJvOjCQAwB4N1mRwu +4FA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306Sax/3evpZwqqFlPJo/qaA5eYjVHvtWkoOIqPTHw6wfaWLYPz TlHX5NlaO99bdLfbdtZP1ZaV9IjcEW0UDaJDw04XJmHAtNE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwb7rpQYfwbQUzEpVClrdiJFz/hCCSrL+AtrIydaazqhwJJenXaNPm+bwirxZVLm3ILz4F0YehoUsFl2NlBsso=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1865:: with SMTP id 37mr13831953pgy.206.1611793021000; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:17:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPDSy+5R=v2GjyJU1o=+Ai0X0iOqJSX787GfLBSUkd9odR++Rw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+5R=v2GjyJU1o=+Ai0X0iOqJSX787GfLBSUkd9odR++Rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:16:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+4REQypGw2=_R0OGWPdUL20ZB4gnS2jqnsyU+D1pCscCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: WebTransport <webtransport@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000077e07505b9eace38"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webtransport/kOKkn7qTSCQW3ug0Lbud0ApETQI>
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, 28 Jan 2021 00:17:13 -0000

Hi WebTransport enthusiasts,

This consensus is now confirmed: for the foreseeable future,
the WEBTRANS working group will focus on building a single
UDP-based protocol for WebTransport, and that protocol will
run atop HTTP/3.

Our next step is to adopt a document that matches this
description. The only matching proposal that has been
discussed on this list so far is Victor's
"WebTransport over HTTP/3" individual draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-webtransport-http3

We are therefore placing this document in a call for adoption.

Please reply to this email stating whether you support adoption
of draft-vvv-webtransport-http3 by the WEBTRANS WG. Note
that WG adoption does not indicate consensus on the contents
of the document, only that it's a reasonable starting point for
us to start working on. As such, please DO NOT send comments
about the technical details of the draft on this email thread - please
create a separate email thread on <webtransport@ietf.org> or open
a GitHub issue at <https://github.com/vasilvv/webtransport/issues>.

As usual, if you believe that we should not adopt this document,
please state why. In our last meeting we've noted some concerns
around pooling for example, and we plan on discussing those as
a working group once the document is adopted.

This adoption call will last for two weeks until 2021-02-10.

Thanks,
David

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:25 AM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi WebTransport enthusiasts,
>
> Today we had an interim of the IETF WEBTRANS WG,
> where we reached consensus in the (virtual) room on
> the following questions:
>
> Question 1: number of protocols
>     Should the working group adopt only one UDP-based transport?
>     1A: only one transport (QUIC or HTTP/3)
>     1B: multiple transports (QUIC and HTTP/3)
>
> The consensus was option 1A.
>
> Additionally, we noted that this does not preclude us from
> building a second protocol at a later date if new information
> emerges.
>
> Question 2: UDP-based protocols
>     Which UDP-based option should we adopt as a starting
>     point for WebTransport protocol?
>     2A: WebTransport over HTTP/3
>     2B: WebTransport over QUIC directly (separate ALPN)
>
> The consensus was option 2A.
>
> 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.
>
> We'd like to confirm this consensus on the list. If you disagree
> with these points, please reply on the list. If you do so, please
> state how strongly you feel - whether you are expressing a
> preference, or an imperative. Please also provide as much
> detail as possible to explain your position. Please also respond
> if you support this consensus - a simple "I support this consensus"
> email to the list would be helpful.
>
> We'll be running this consensus call for two weeks, please reply
> before 2021-01-26, the chairs will determine consensus on that date.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>