Subject: Interoping draft 20 HTTP/3

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:55:23 +0100

In the IETF 104 session today we discussed the next interop target. I agree
that aiming for draft 20 is a good target and anecdotally there is strong
interest from HTTP/3 implementations to do so.

Some comments were made that the changes to 20 were minimal. However, IMO
the changes to HTTP/3 are pretty big - the change to variable length
integers affects most types. It was discussed at length (relatively
speaking for HTTP/3), agreed and landed soon after. Unfortunately there are
some issues that gained consensus in Tokyo but have yet to be addressed;
either no PR or unmerged PR.

Therefore, I encourage us to close out some of the remaining issues on
HTTP/3 and QPACK before cutting new releases of those documents.

Lucas

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:03:06 -0400

What are the QPACK issues that need addressing?  To the best of my knowledge, there are no outstanding QPACK issues whose resolution would effect changes in implementation.

  - Dmitri.

From: QUIC <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Lucas Pardue
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 05:55
To: QUIC WG <[email-masked]>; HTTP Working Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Interoping draft 20 HTTP/3

In the IETF 104 session today we discussed the next interop target. I agree that aiming for draft 20 is a good target and anecdotally there is strong interest from HTTP/3 implementations to do so.

Some comments were made that the changes to 20 were minimal. However, IMO the changes to HTTP/3 are pretty big - the change to variable length integers affects most types. It was discussed at length (relatively speaking for HTTP/3), agreed and landed soon after. Unfortunately there are some issues that gained consensus in Tokyo but have yet to be addressed; either no PR or unmerged PR.

Therefore, I encourage us to close out some of the remaining issues on HTTP/3 and QPACK before cutting new releases of those documents. 

Lucas

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 14:04:40 +0100

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 11:03 , <[email-masked]> wrote:

> What are the QPACK issues that need addressing?  To the best of my
> knowledge, there are no outstanding QPACK issues whose resolution would
> effect changes in implementation.
>
There's a balance between impact of change on code, and the impact on
interop. So the obvious one that sticks out to me is #2371 - assign QPACK
error codes. This was agreed in Tokyo but no PR emerged.

If we decide to interop on this area we will waste time self defining
codes. Or worse, let the tail wag the dog and avoid doing this bit.

To be clear, I think several things that remaining open are low hanging
fruit. I'm keen to push us over the line before the draft 20 is cut.

I appreciate we are yet to hold HTTPbis this week. And I dont want to tread
on the editors' toes. I just get a little sad that HTTP/3 is somewhat the
lesser-loved middle child. I'm happy to roll up my sleeves to help out.

Lucas

---

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:21:41 -0400

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 02:04:40PM +0100, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> > knowledge, there are no outstanding QPACK issues whose resolution
> > would effect changes in implementation.
> >

It's been several weeks since Alan's promise to add the error codes.
If you want to help out, he'd probably appreciate a ready-to-merge
pull request with the codes.

Looking over the list [1], it would be nice is we resolved 2100
before -20 -- but it does not affect QPACK proper.

> I just get a little sad that HTTP/3 is somewhat the lesser-loved
> middle child.

The way I look at it is "squeaky wheel gets the grease."  Maybe HTTP/3
is fine.

  - Dmitri.

1. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+qpack+in%3Atitle

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 14:31:41 +0100

> The way I look at it is "squeaky wheel gets the grease."  Maybe HTTP/3

This thread is an attempt to liaise with the list members that maybe
doesn't have the capacity to track PRs and issues. I'd happily surface this
but that verges on eating the editors lunch.

Lucas

>   - Dmitri.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+qpack+in%3Atitle
>