Re: Thoughts on HELIUM/HiNT

On Monday, July 9, 2018, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:16 AM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is interesting work and a direction that has some promise.  Its
>> effect on consolidation [1] is something that needs consideration, but
>> some of the effects of that consolidation promise to have some
>> positive outcomes.
>>
>> However, I don't think that this is an HTTP working group item, and
>> nor should it be.  I think that this needs to concentrate on
>> lower-layer primitives than what HTTP currently provides.
>>
>
> I think it's both.
>
> There's definitely a big piece of lower-layer work that probably shouldn't
> happen in HTTP.  However, the goal is to build something that is firmly
> embedded in HTTP.  For example, some of our ideas would require defining
> new HTTP/2 frame types.  At a minimum, I think we need to check whether the
> HTTP WG is reasonably supportive before we start the work in earnest.
>
> Perhaps the chairs have advice on how to structure these initial
> discussions.
>

[he whispers into the air to nobody in particular :)]

Its not clear to me either - and that's ok pre-meeting. While this isn't
solely the kind of thing httpbis focuses on, its hard to ignore the
introduction of new methods, modification of existing methods, and even
frame types.

That's the reason we want to give it air time in Montreal - to get an
understanding of the proposal and the reaction of http stakeholders (Martin
is the first on the record :).. Basically, exploratory. I'm glad its seeing
dispatch air time too.

I do want to urge anyone that develops, maintains, or even regularly
interacts with FORWARD proxies to step forward and help us understand what
you think of this and how it imapcts your system (that would be interesting
feedback from the authors as well). This is a somewhat less common aspect
of the ecosystem than at the time the core tunneling semantics were done so
I'd like to make sure we're not writing things down in a vacuum.

-Patrick


> Discussion of part of this on the DISPATCH agenda, which is good.  I
>> would prefer to see this taken on in a new working group.
>>
>
> That does seem like a good option.
>
>
>> [1] see https://www.ietf.org/blog/consolidation/
>>
>>