[Webtransport] CDN support

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 16 November 2020 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.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 26FC63A16A1 for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 01:47:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_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=mnot.net header.b=FFyNiuHu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=p62EVByj
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 NMyZdlqVyD2V for <webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 01:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B3143A16BD for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 01:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8485C003B for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 04:46:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 16 Nov 2020 04:46:56 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=from :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :message-id:date:to; s=fm1; bh=hB9nPglccJaX/hPj3UQ1mHcq9d9P2nzRd jSJSzrw8dU=; b=FFyNiuHu/ApdvULtjGZ+0ZrvepWVYPqCdMgNCncMki4WilORu CbFGYECHibqpJxkDfyq4TUGiz8cqd5VaMdUO4FILVmAPiPuz+423dfbOnVJeHjoY 2GWHTMVA7IvT5pC/zmlXXm7Rg2w6/EziGotfOf4RBa5kYxEjj2vJ+UT46ksa9qM9 sP/tCskmCkO5+Mee6KUBgUScsEvlQK61FXklczHRrVHLrL2y3Kz29MEaBgRHzKuh lztASIHvJJCzSp9TM52U9HuNWDZsbGzx+33F1hkdtWolLN4fHTRtPCQVJYHfdUiH NV/DePVP2O6EP/fuCOtbJ12Uo1Rm+JC2dJ1kA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=hB9nPg lccJaX/hPj3UQ1mHcq9d9P2nzRdjSJSzrw8dU=; b=p62EVByjUJ3z828gsoxJRy gwNJAJz/JnaS4jh+/aBKmeoWm2CyU+05DPmFHdcNt5OZ5W9VvHM/eKwxvTZX+yYh BcVzT9Ci8Ei6oVVBZEnL8jY1Drp01m0sU/ZV3NzBjoJPKkm0iCcbbD0VHO22JIIf dF+u+41Ar5ewKqPTsBa7qU2Rl+3xyJgwwgESAIVZ8tGzgZJpdB0IQNcmyLp8cW0q QK3jQQb60qtzWJYP2S71Oo9pHlA+WC3UsE1AFDMHk12PAAx7+wS2eJrtuCJxXYu5 7RdxzWaklCIQ/ZuVOlCIn3GPxswhW0vpT47/xmYHnnTQtI1gLi3GjFljZCnbuyXw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:j0qyXxSS0BHzyoAxTufiYdSsV-DGKBLZW_3c7E2t20zI0DWD1HkUKQ> <xme:j0qyX6xGckN2qOtv0X5p3V7lmKDq6r5anddgDPWgtwhOeUU5HYgAfZhuTAwFr8zBs ZUDMMd1o5ktoCMv3g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudefuddgtdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhtgfgggfukfffvffosehtqhhmtd hhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcupfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhho thdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgfevkeeiieegleejkeefvdffuefflefhud dutdetfeduleefffejuddtvdegfeffnecuffhomhgrihhnpehmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfk phepudduledrudejrdduheekrddvhedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:j0qyX233FqlQ_Z24rPJH7l23nH1jgQl93S5jNuBtfPXMj3uzayWkcg> <xmx:j0qyX5CzcoSx9Llgqp2UIKs7R_kvmzgaUuofvEuh-pamL5PzCWNkXg> <xmx:j0qyX6iYLRcM9uPobk_E3Nuz01v5jiCotnCvely80uR_7VI1qw0xxA> <xmx:kEqyX-agds86JWfZwlxtEcviF8C9cali6RInocE66EflgQE2GFubvA>
Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 443573280064 for <webtransport@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 04:46:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Message-Id: <0E2D3F5B-4F1D-494A-8660-02201C7B9F28@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:46:52 +1100
To: webtransport@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webtransport/ydizmwRowLOw__HOpdqPc8DINdk>
Subject: [Webtransport] CDN support
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: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:47:00 -0000

[ Since meetecho seemed to be having problems (I can't get back into the meeting, and jabber seems to be perma-segmented), I'll say what I queued for here ]

I see that there are questions as to whether CDNs will support WebTransport.

It's important to understand that from a CDN's perspective, WebTransport is very similar to WebSockets. If by 'support' you mean 'proxy connections 1:1, and maybe do some access control and routing on them' -- yes, CDNs can support WebTransport (whether they will is of course a different question).

However, if you want something more sophisticated, like caching or fanout of messages, WebTransport doesn't provide anything for a CDN to "grab onto", in terms of message delimitation or semantics.

When WebSockets was created, the assumption was that a 'thousand flowers would bloom' and eventually the market would choose a few winners, and infrastructure could focus on optimising that. That hasn't happened in the intervening decade+. I have a few suspicions as to why, but that's probably a separate discussion.

So it would be very good if folks who are asking for CDN support to be super-specific about what they want, and also to be realistic about what they're likely to get. The bargain of WebTransport is that it's a protocol construction toolkit -- just like WebSockets -- where you build everything yourself. You can't have it both ways, unless someone does the work to build the semantic 'handles' on top of it in a way that infrastructure can use -- and once you start doing that, you might find yourself re-inventing HTTP.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/