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

[ HTTP and WebTransport lists to BCC, please reply on MASQUE list or in
GitHub ]

Hi everyone, the editors worked with Mark and Phillipp to write a fairly
large editorial PR.
While this PR didn't change anything normative, we really believe it
significantly improves
readability of the document, especially for folks coming in with more HTTP
than QUIC
experience. For folks coming to this WGLC now, please do check out the
latest version of the draft:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-08.html
or ideally we recommend reviewing the editor's copy:
https://ietf-wg-masque.github.io/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram.html

Thanks!
David

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:41 AM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> [ HTTP and WebTransport lists to BCC to avoid further cross-posting ]
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thank you for reviewing the document, and for spending the time to write
> this PR. The editors really appreciate it. You're absolutely right that the
> draft was written focusing on HTTP/3 -- that's because we initially started
> with only supporting HTTP/3 a few years back, but now that we're defining
> something more generic over HTTP, I agree that some editorial changes are
> needed. Having looked at your PR, I think it definitely helps -- Lucas and
> I will sit down and review it together in detail, I suspect we'll end up
> cherry-picking most of it into the document.
>
> To respond to your question about the history of the Capsule Protocol,
> there was interest from the MASQUE WG to create this generic messaging
> system beyond only sending datagrams over h2 and h1. In particular,
> CONNECT-IP relies on it to exchange IP configuration, and WebTransport
> relies on it to exchange session close messages.
>
> Since the MASQUE WG has been using GitHub, could we ask you to send your
> issues/questions there please?
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/issues
> We're also happy to take feedback on the list but GitHub is preferred.
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:22 AM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>
>> --
>> Masque mailing list
>> Masque@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>>
>