W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2022

Re: [Masque] WGLC for draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 15:22:02 +1100
Message-Id: <BA7FC1A8-9668-470A-B58B-38A16EE7B725@mnot.net>
Cc: webtransport@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, MASQUE <masque@ietf.org>
To: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
OK, I've done a rough run at a PR; see:
  https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/pull/152

The HTML is waiting on someone to press the button on the Action, so I've attached my locally generated copy.

Personally, I think this is a significant improvement, and I don't believe I've changed anything normative.* While I'd be happy to see it merged (perhaps after some more work), I'd be equally pleased if it were cherry-picked from.

Even if nothing from it is incorporated, the exercise has helped me understand the document better, and I've got a few issues/questions as a result. The previous e-mail asked for feedback on-list; is that still preferred?

Cheers,


* If folks do find normative differences, I'd be interested to hear about it; it might indicate misunderstanding on my part, or lack of clarity in the source document. Either way, it'd be good to clear up.


  


> On 23 Mar 2022, at 12:49 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris et al,
> 
> I've had a read-through of the document, thanks.
> 
> The first thing that I noticed is that the specification is very obviously written from the perspective of someone who's very deep into the details of HTTP/3 and QUIC, and is either confusing or silent about how this relates to HTTP as a protocol overall. If this is going to be a new, version-independent feature of HTTP, I think we should specify it as one in the first instance -- especially given how poorly past attempts have failed when they weren't well-integrated (e.g., push).
> 
> So, I think it needs a non-trivial rewrite that shouldn't affect implementations, but unfortunately will affect the editors. I'm willing to work on a PR if that'd be helpful -- but it may take a bit of time to get right. Would that work for you/them?
> 
> Once that happens, I think it'll be easier to evaluate the technical content. If I understand it correctly, I have no problem with the on-the-wire details, although the capsule protocol feels like premature abstraction at this point. Could someone speak to the thinking behind it?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
>> On 22 Mar 2022, at 4:38 am, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> wrote:
>> 
>> (Cross-posting to MASQUE, HTTPBIS, and WebTransport)
>> 
>> This email initiates the WGLC for draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram, located here:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/
>> 
>> Please review the document and send any comments to the MASQUE mailing list. HTTPBIS and WebTransport are cc'd given the overlap in technology.
>> 
>> This call will conclude on April 8.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Chris and Eric
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> -- 
> Masque mailing list
> Masque@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque

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


Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2022 04:22:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 23 March 2022 04:22:25 UTC