- From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 22:24:45 +0100
- To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
- Cc: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALGR9oafkfoSD7HUXyqaZMeXu-XqTt4eJ6EhHdVb_t_v4wiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
I'd also add that by deprecating Alt-Svc, we can reasonably descope it from other related work, to the advantage if the community. For instance, Martin Duke and I have a draft intended to optimise performance of selecting QUIC versions with HTTP/3 [1]. We describe how this works with the HTTPS record. We also have to accommodate Alt-Svc since "that's what people use", even though we know that Alt-Svc's design is broken for this type of versioning support in certain scenarios like multi-CDN. I can live with contuinuing to send Alt-Svc in order to support legacy clients. Alt-Svc being frozen in time and not getting new goodies seems fair. Cheers Lucas [1] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duke-httpbis-quic-version-alt-svc/ On Tue, 25 Oct 2022, 21:33 Tommy Pauly, <tpauly@apple.com> wrote: > The way I’d look at this is that we should be fine keeping the use of > Alt-Svc for existing (and what will become legacy) clients to upgrade to > h3, but we should not use it for any new protocol discovery. I.e., when we > have an HTTP version that needs some transport other than TCP and QUIC, we > shouldn’t plan on using Alt-Svc for that. So, our timeline should be to > make sure clients can do HTTPS RRs by the time we replace QUIC, which > should give us time. > > Tommy > > On Oct 25, 2022, at 1:21 PM, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote: > > I would second David's statement. In the world we live in today, we still > need to use the Alt-Svc header for a substantial number of users. > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 2:31 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> Thanks for writing this up. Overall I think the long-term strategy makes >> sense, but I think it's too early to obsolete/deprecate 7838. It's fairly >> common for browsers to use getaddrinfo() on some platforms and that does >> not provide access to HTTPS RRs. In those cases, 7838 is the only path to >> using HTTP/3, so I expect browsers to keep using it for quite some time. >> Marking 7838 as obsolete doesn't reflect that reality. >> >> David >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 5:10 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote: >> >>> Hey everyone, >>> >>> The Alt-Svc design team has been very busy recently and making some >>> progress on working out an alternative alternative services design. >>> >>> I just posted >>> https://martinthomson.github.io/alt-svcb/draft-thomson-httpbis-alt-svcb.html >>> as a -00 draft. This outlines the alternative design that we've been >>> exploring in the design team. >>> >>> The basic idea is split into two procedures: >>> >>> 1. Use: When an Alt-SvcB field or ALTSVCB frame is encountered, the >>> client looks for HTTPS records for the provided name in the DNS and creates >>> a connection using what it learns. >>> 2. Reuse: When a client that has previously used an alternative service >>> connects again, it remembers the HTTPS record that worked. It performs a >>> regular HTTPS record lookup for the server - not using the alternative that >>> it learned, but the name from the URI - but it prefers the alternative it >>> previously used if that alternative appears in the results. >>> >>> The draft explains in more detail and goes into some of the implications >>> of the design. >>> >>> This is not done by any imagining. We have a bunch of open issues at >>> https://github.com/martinthomson/alt-svcb/issues that do require some >>> amount of input. But we think that this is a promising approach and would >>> appreciate more input. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martin >>> >>> >
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2022 21:25:15 UTC