Re: New I-D: Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3

I did not forget about it; <
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3-01.html#section-3.2>
covers this explicitly for WebTransport.

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 20:32 David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> (speaking solely as a QUIC/MASQUE/WebTransport enthusiast)
>
> I agree with MT here. WebTransport is currently relying on Extended
> CONNECT, and MASQUE is going to soon (assuming the MASQUE WG reaches
> consensus on that, but everyone seemed to agree last time we discussed it -
> I've been planning on writing PRs for CONNECT-UDP and CONNECT-IP but I got
> distracted with other things). Over in WebTransport and MASQUE we had
> somewhat forgotten about the fact that HTTP/2 SETTINGS need to be redefined
> for HTTP/3, but that was an oversight. So I'm in favor of progressing
> draft-hamilton-httpbis-h3-websockets as both WebTransport and MASQUE will
> likely have a dependency on it. The sooner we get this in the pipeline, the
> better.
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 7:46 AM Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 4:51 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021, at 04:19, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
>>> > I'm not terribly familiar with the discussions in MASQUE or WebTrans
>>> > about extended CONNECT. Are they intending to revise 8441 for
>>> > WebSockets?
>>>
>>> My understanding is that they just plan to use it (though the recent
>>> MASQUE CONNECT-IP update did not include that change).  I don't think that
>>> your proposal is affected by this.  I would say carry on.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the update! That's excellent. Ok, per Lucas's suggestion I've
>> added text about stream closure and added a link to the relevant section of
>> RFC 9000. I've updated the copy of the doc in github. Should I also push a
>> new ID?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>