Re: [Webtransport] Confirming Consensus on WebTransport protocols

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 12 January 2021 20:59 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 2CDFC3A11F1 for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:59:08 -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 gidmHvmgP1YE for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:59:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (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 2EFD23A11F3 for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:59:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id c22so2243760pgg.13 for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:59:06 -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 :cc; bh=glFhOSGbots3S8/tYsQwJh/6Zo1XC4oD6tlYBttxOjI=; b=lMrcuj5R4JU4ND91EB/Ozz+1t2zjpElD6ye87ia7geijojlMq24D4Cs9e/oZT9JpAb JOTYVezeGYwj4vi0Qc1SwKisusBDmHhH/mwwLqPdB2lZUntfd2/MTffktOyzM6Kd8mYb aV6UzNcOpCYYbnLcpJsKns7IU8out3put+JxG23QKu95KZCrXdr/5CxH7X6+DzYBaAyH t4vy1wWcuVUasU64JJl5KsDVJxmBrHHT88Tq2iFbzgn1T2wzWSejgUGpco/QxtSDYJx5 FWPIucqy3NQ9BwiBE31x9Bky9k1WJf798gV+mx83P5EHs3fM0lgppwhGaOSKQ5oApHZp Z7rg==
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=glFhOSGbots3S8/tYsQwJh/6Zo1XC4oD6tlYBttxOjI=; b=duz3LzimOrkDtaU0V2Kc29QJXR67EjME1HiKNyuRO40wnmpZ7LIa5NSMEkGeYKqGGd ovqdgitSAPhIgnnXvfVeU0EOZx1wNtm39QpaSWtax2qCKJ0+xndywSbae7f8tTacyptK 1VWrixcGJT5bqSRgpm3p/w1a1DZmKD8w2wOYHNKH1U8KDmfC0sP8CZmwqg8+SWQxtr68 6w3tu1rQsAc2aynKvVO+5bxukfbXZnYeYKLYg8jAGLre9fAUpTfwPJeCZu+OmzlbJQHP HVFY7/deJNDszoQTBzrvrD5vjdsZD1ecA9YiDcvSIzypGrn4YLUnEc65leHwVgFw8STV 5gDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533L4TJbXP2WNmRs9LgK/+ynmPMv6ZHjvY7K45vibXFXe/Dv58/S vQSwmkBQDDT5/g6UdaJEAeghR4Cfo+VbQQWxUhKva6ob
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7e4fdurnU9slLk7tK4XV1u8Yz1s/UtZp30lK7aWLv/9yxoHJltNg4mzoBkByBR34LCDfXmha4Mi8Qd35cleg=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:96d8:0:b029:19e:bc79:cf7 with SMTP id h24-20020aa796d80000b029019ebc790cf7mr996999pfq.22.1610485145483; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:59:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPDSy+5R=v2GjyJU1o=+Ai0X0iOqJSX787GfLBSUkd9odR++Rw@mail.gmail.com> <1EE7A63C-E68D-4B70-A8CB-C2A6003AC467@fb.com> <C4FFF30E-A8D6-4471-8FC4-C6C4A00ED679@apple.com> <CAHVo=Z=aP-OsgE87JGYT7xAjLLrgHKpa-16wtvpoCJp7F_209g@mail.gmail.com> <dcf8a612-8d2f-f796-35c0-fb471166cf48@steinwurf.com>
In-Reply-To: <dcf8a612-8d2f-f796-35c0-fb471166cf48@steinwurf.com>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:58:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+6YG2jY5HNyZJk3av1rL4xGcTy24W4BKS9uNxo1h-f-nQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Morten V. Pedersen" <morten@steinwurf.com>
Cc: WebTransport <webtransport@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000033df905b8ba4b8e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webtransport/qmMrBSzAvw45EjyL5lD5ZQ8oYaY>
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: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:59:08 -0000

Hi Morten, Yes WebTransport over HTTP/3 supports unreliable datagrams.

David

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:40 PM Morten V. Pedersen <morten@steinwurf.com>
wrote:

> I'm sorry for being uninformed here. But does this preclude unreliable
> datagram support from an application point of view. I.e. will users of
> Webtransport be able to send unreliable datagrams when using Webtransport
> over HTTP/3?
>
> All the best,
> Morten
> On 12/01/2021 19.28, Luke Curley wrote:
>
> Yeah, I want to reaffirm that my vote for HTTP/3 was tied to the removal
> of pooling. The current Http3Transport draft is more complex than it needs
> to be in order to support pooling, which is a fringe optimization at best.
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:15 AM Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=
> 40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> I support this consensus.
>>
>> To Alan’s point, I’d expect that we’ll continue to discuss pooling, but
>> that we’re not committing to delivering something that supports pooling
>> without further identifying the complexities involved and designing
>> something which sufficiently resolves those concerns. (As would be
>> reasonable for any protocol feature.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Alan Frindell <
>> afrind=40fb.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> I support the consensus on Question 1 and Question2.
>>
>> > 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 think this statement is worded too strongly.  We discussed pooling and
>> made it clear that choosing H3 does not mandate that we will support
>> pooling. My understanding is that it will continue to be discussed in the
>> working group.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>> *From: *Webtransport <webtransport-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of David
>> Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 9:26 AM
>> *To: *WebTransport <webtransport@ietf.org>
>> *Subject: *[Webtransport] Confirming Consensus on WebTransport protocols
>>
>> 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
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> Webtransport mailing list
> Webtransport@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
>