One person indicated that they might implement
One cache has implemented, another has intent to implement
Patrick: Park this doc for an indeterminate period time
Has gotten fairly broad review inside and outside the WG
Rate of change is slowing down
Wants to wait for HTTP core documents
Willing to wait for this
Martin Thomson: Having it is more important that publishing it Would be good to ship with core documents, so hold until then
20ish people in the room has read it
Patrick: Lots of issues have been opened and dealt with Please read the privacy considerations section Someone from SAAG wanted a normative reference
Paul Hoffman: That person was saying why the weren’t doing BCP56 correctly
Julian Reschke: Some things might move between this and the core doc
Martin: Hesitant to go back to TLS often Likes the separation between the identifiers Concerned with the carriage of the blobs
Ben Schwartz: Is it possible to send a request that gets more than one?
Mike: You can find the request ID of the one that you sent
Ben: Could you have frames that have requests that get explicit answers?
Mike: Could add that
Kazuho Oku: I don’t need the request ID. If we put the request ID in the request, it doesn’t save us anything
Nick Sullivan: Saving the search
Martin: Is OK with either one
?: What is the context of the certificate authentication? Can this be applied to alt-svc?
Mike: Only for this connection
Nick: This is for reducing the scope with more complexity
Ben: Could you imagine a tag that creates a pool?
Richard Barnes: Tagging seems way more sensible for CDNs Hinging your security on adding that tag
?: Suggests a tighter restriction
Kyle ?: Could share with related certificates
Richard: Wants certs with domain names
More to do, lots of interest
Martin: These things go on the wire ordered anyway But processors don’t need to follow the order
Julian: What characters are allowed in identifiers?
Would like to ship by IETF 103
Commitments to review: about four
Intend to keep this open
Just started WG Last Call for three weeks
Experimental because only one browser
Not much document progress since last meeting
Ekr: Why would an alternative server send me a new SNI
Mark: Doesn’t require the alternate to be named in the cert?
Mike: Adds a “concealed option”
Ekr: It must validate for the real cert
Ben: Agrees with that analysis Introduces a variety of modes, some don’t cover all attacks
?: Why are we mucking around with the SNI itself? Can we eliminate it altogether?
DKG: Allows an attacker to block
Erik Nygren: Is this in addition to or instead of?
Ekr: Makes the cover domain subject to blocking
DKG: ESNI permits client-facing server from the actual server
Mike: Alts do not
DKG: Lets middle server see clear text
Kazho: Why do you need a new DNS record type?
Ben: Allows load balance across multiple CDNs
Erik: Likes ALTSVC in DNS Problems with ESNI goes away
Patrick: Likes some parts of some of these
Lutz Jacob: Is interested in this for “trusted traffic” Origin can redirect traffic around Publishing the records might be a challenge for the
Ted: Doesn’t think DNS human readability is important
Ben: Someone needs to configure this somewhere Likes ESNI, but it creates a operational integration point that has to be fully automated
Ekr: If you want PFS for ESNI, then you have to rotate the keys quickly Is everyone on the CDN going to use the alt svc to go to the one cover name So everyone in the world goes through an extra round trip
Mike: You can also use some other host name in the cert, and get ambiguity
Ekr: Huge information leak
Ben: Useful for if there is just one domain on an IP address
Mark: Who is interested in continuing discussion DNS ALTSVC?
Who is interested in continuing discussion of Alt-Svc SNI?
Martin: Concerned about privacy, but the alternatives are worse Use opaque identifier
?: Likes the Forwarded header is better with “by” field.
Leif: Would like spec to be useful for cross-CDN and intra-CDN
Nick: Thinks already has intra-CDN solution
Patrick: Would the resolution of scope be OK in the WG
Mark: Very specific problem Doesn’t want it to be so general to not fix the inter-CDN problem
Kazuho: Likes the must-not-modify feature
Erik: Likes having a specific header
Mike: Novel and useful piece is a header that much not be removed
Chris ?: In favor of looking at this work
?: Helps work end-to-end
Mark: Reusing “Forwarded” makes people maybe want to remove it Wants it done in this WG instead of in a CDN-specific group
Hum: None opposed
Ben: HELIUM was covered in DISPATCH
Mike: Likes the architecture and problem statement Maybe don’t want the transport part here Maybe form a new WG for the combined set
Erik: There is a lot of transport stuff here IPsec over UDP covers a lot of the use cases
Jana Iyengar: Google already has such a use case Useful
Ben: DISPATCH chairs want it in DISPATCH
Kazuho: Push is useful if you have a long pipe
Aman: Push over QUIC could be interesting
William ?: .15% had push Three weeks ago it one third Question on how many pages got nuked
Alan ?: Browsers are different, so it is hard for big sites like Facebook
Erik: Can you filter by when the push happens
Mike: Both are collecting data off of Chrome, but you have diverging results First navigations are different than all navigations Maybe joint experiment from both sides
Patrick: Leave it alone in h/2
Mike Bishop: Do you never expect another version of HTTP?
Patrick McManus: In my mind QUIC is h3
Mark Nottingham: On the client side it’s a clean slate, on the server side I expect them to complain.
Gabriel Montenegro: Do you think we can take advantage of this in h/2 without extra signalling?
Patrick McManus: I see it as a bunch of backporting from hQ to h/2
Jana: Agree with Patrick, leave it alone for now
?? (Apple): I would be content with leaving it alone. With the future and things diverge, then the API layers should be in line.
Roy Fielding: The question is if someone willing to write a doc about h2 priorities, then we should accept it.
Lucas Purdue: How does this relate to priority work in WICG?
Mark Nottingham and Patrick McManus and Martin Thomson: The WICG is a playground, and has little weight on their process.
The working group consensus is to do nothing for now.
Martin Thomson: We should do this to maintain similarity with QUIC, and it’s hard.
Patrick McManus: Many things brought it to tls1.3 and QUIC. My draft id connect tunnels for websockets was deployed. He had settings deployed from server -> client, and a popular OS client promptly closed the connection. If there are other willing to experiment, join me.
Mike Bishop: Since the issue was found on a client, then we need servers to deploy this experiment?
Mark Nottingham: anyone want to send GREASE values? (handful)
The working group will wait for experimentation reports on the list and decide how to incorporate into the documents.
mnot: Have an open issue to reference new documents. We can go through the cookies doc, but not sure about QUIC.
mbishop: There text we want to reference in QUIC from the new RFCs.
mnot: I think we can get it done in time for QUIC to reference them.
Roy Fielding: The history of the drafts can be seen for the last 15 years in github. There are a set of diffs of the changes to HTTP core.
mcmanus: I appreciate all the work that went into this reorganization.
mnot: The overall structure is good, and can be tweaked as we go along.
mnot: Good to add it; it’s generic and should be in core. Do we mark the that this document updates webdav?
Julian: Not necessarily, unless we change the definition.
mt: Include it, but don’t worry about Updates WebDAV.
There is consensus to include it in HTTP core.
Roy Fielding: Maybe we change it to be the condition we do not want it to fail.
Mark Nottingham: What about what to do if there are multiple instances of the same field?
Roy Fielding: Define it in terms of what the field is when combined.
Martin Thomson: My experience is that things that coalesce do it blindly?
mnot: I recommend changing it to obsoleted.
mt: No one use this, and fine that if they do they get undesired results.
mcmanus: It’s a good bar to set that if something is harmful.
mt: Abbreviate it for historical purposes and deprecate it. We can’t remove something unless it never existed.
rfielding: I agree we should have it in the spec, and why you shouldn’t use it.
The working group consensus is to mark Accept-Charset as obsolete.
mt: Jeffery notes preload and prefetch also have this problem.
mcmanus: We could introduce the notion of single use response.
mnot: We have a section for caching and history lists. I do like the idea of a single use response.
mt: We need to decide on which of these
no-store is, and go from there.
mnot: I’m talking about whether no-store is opt-out from re-using it.
mt: If I’ve been waiting for a response and now I have to regenerate.
mcmanus: FF sometimes collapses and sometimes doesn’t, so it is contextual.
Chris Lemmons: If we get the same requests very close, we collapse them, so clarity would be helpful.
The working group consensus is to clarify the definition of ‘no-store’.
Julian: Is this a request to extend RFC 7694?
mnot: Would we obsolete 7694 and incorporate into core?
mt: It makes sense to roll these into HTTP core and obsolete the former.
The working group consensus is to roll 7695 into core.
There is some support to incorporate Accept into the server-side; to confirm on the list.
Julian: I seen people ask for “/text” or “/*+json”.
mt: Glob it!
mnot: If I have 5 specific JSON-based media types, I’m not sure what the utility is.
Julian: If you have support for 5 types, then I can ask for the JSON variant of all the types you can produce.
mnot: I believe ti be an interesting use case for “give me any image type”.
roy: I would hesitate to make any changes here.
mcmanus: If anyone has implementation experience can tell us about it.
roy: I don’t have any good use cases for it. We’ve kept this for historical reasons, and people have used it to select a particular version of a media type.
mnot: I suspect the most we can do is warn people about unintended consequences.
Julian: This might be for BCP 56bis.
The working group consensus is to add text to discourage or warn about it, but not deprecate it.
Mbishop: For connect specifically, it does feel a little weird. I wonder if we can find appropriate wording about how connect converts to this other tunnel.
mnot: I think that’s a separable issue, and revisit “CONNECT” as a generic method. It probably shouldn’t modify the semantics of GET.
mbishop: I wonder if an extension for a particular mapping can effect how a method is modified in that mapping.
mnot: How it gets expressed on the wire shouldn’t affect that mapping.
mt: I’m not sure about CONNECT as an example, but consider it “special” instead. This question is difficult because we are talking about the semantic model, and not talking about e.g., h/2 bits.
mnot: We have an open issue to put text around the semantic issues around h/2. Then we can talk about h/2 extensions.
mcmanus: The way this is describe is in terms of h/2 model and not the generic core model.
mnot: We went to great effort to talk about extension points in -bis, but h/2 was coming.
Julian: In h/2 the extension can modify anything, and that causes confusion and conflict. What Patrick did for CONNECT and websocket was ok but should not be looked at for more generic.
roy: Extending a name to have meaning where it didn’t before is ok, but extending it to change its meaning should not be allowed anywhere in the IETF.
mt: We reserved CONNECT in the registry.
The working group consensus is to explore it but wait for h/2 text.
There is also consensus to revisit the definition of CONNECT.
mt: I think this is largely orthogonal; we don’t have to do it, but it’s reasonable to do while the document is open.
mcmanus: Some of the implementation deviation is the lack of guidance.
mnot: I think fetch has done a lot of the hard work and we should reflect that here.
Working group consensus is to work on some text here.
mt: I think this is largely orthogonal; we don’t have to do it, but it’s reasonable to do while the document is open. I think this is useful if the registry rulesa re sufficiently different. I’m a little in support, but procedures can drag on a bit.
Alexey: I would like you to take this issue to dispatch. If you are suggesting to change the registration procedure it should be dispatched.
This issue requires more discussion on list and likely needs to be taken to DISPATCH.
mt: Sure (make it simpler).
mbishop: My inclination is that if you are updated then you might not be backward compatible.
roy: Would like the reduced syntax.
Julian: This can be done with new registration procedures (above).
Chairs encourage everyone to engage in the issues on the list.