Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3
draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets-04

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Vijay Gurbani for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/MA9WZc8SHIyjFmEN_0yCkUuFodo).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 3. , paragraph 2, nit:
>  RST exceptions are represented with an stream error (Section 8 of [HTTP3]) o
>                                      ^^
Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
e.g. "a sentence", "a university".

[Ballot comment]
I was dreading reviewing this document - I understand what websockets are, and how to use them, but much of how they are actually implemented is black magic to me.
Same for HTTP/3 - it's better and faster and securer(!) and all-around-wonderful... but "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3" sounded suspiciously like "prefabulated amulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the panametric fan."

It turns out that this document simply reduces to a previous document which I also didn't understand, and so I manage to remain in blissful ignorance.
Kerphew!

[Ballot comment]
I concur with the others:

* Please finish or remove your Acknowledgments section.

* This needs a reference to HTTP/2.

* This was pretty dense for such a short document.

[Ballot comment]
Like Rob, I find this short document pretty hard to understand for non HTTP expert. Hence, a very superficial review of mine.

I was about to raise the same comment as Martin about the TODO acknowledgement section.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  Given how short this document is, I found it somewhat harder to read than I expected, and hence I have a few minor and editorial suggestions (that you are welcome to take or leave) that may improve readability.

  [RFC8441] defines an extension to HTTP/2 which is also useful in
  HTTP/3.

1. I would suggest adding the referenced doc title here rather than leading the introduction with just the RFC reference number.
2. I think that you need at least an informative reference to HTTP/2.
3. The references to both HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 should be included when they are cited in the first sentence.

  3.  Websockets Upgrade over HTTP/3

4. I would suggest moving the 2nd paragraph that considers stream closure to the end of section 3, since the 1st, 3rd and 4th paragraphs all seem to be more closely related in their subject matter.

Thanks,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
A couple editorial nits in https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1904
and just one "real" comment.

Section 1

  HTTP/3.  This extension makes use of an HTTP/2 setting.  Appendix A.3
  of [HTTP3] describes the required updates for HTTP/2 settings to be
  used with HTTP/3.

The referenced appendix mostly (by line count) talks about how individual
HTTP/2 settings (or the semantics thereof) are mapped to HTTP/3; however,
it does not list or discuss SETTINGS_ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL.  That leads
me to surmise that the intent here is instead to refer to the statements
like "Settings ported from HTTP/2 might choose to redefine their value to
limit it to 30 bits for more efficient encoding, or to make use of the
62-bit space if more than 30 bits are required" and "Settings need to be
defined separately for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3."  If so, perhaps something
like "gives some guidance on what changes (if any) are appropriate when
porting settings from HTTP/2 to HTTP/3" would help direct the reader to
the intended part of A.3?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the HTTP/3 Setting registry on the Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 3 (HTTP/3) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/http3-parameters/

a new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: 0x08
Setting name: SETTINGS_ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL
Default: 0
Status: permanent
Specification: [ RFC-to-be ]
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Change controller: IETF
Contact: HTTP Working Group (ietf-http-wg@w3.org)
Notes:

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-01-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the HTTP WG (httpbis) to consider the
following document: - 'Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-01-19. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The mechanism for running the WebSocket Protocol over a single stream
  of an HTTP/2 connection is equally applicable to HTTP/3, but the HTTP
  version-specific details need to be specified.  This document
  describes how the mechanism is adapted for HTTP/3.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets

## 1. Summary

Mark Nottingham is the document shepherd; Francesca Palombini is the responsible Area Director.

The mechanism for running the WebSocket Protocol over a single stream of an HTTP/2 connection is equally applicable to HTTP/3, but the HTTP version-specific details need to be specified. This document describes how the mechanism is adapted for HTTP/3.

This document is being requested for publication as a Proposed Standard.


## 2. Review and Consensus

Because it is both small and extending already established functionality from HTTP/2 to HTTP/3, this document has enjoyed brief but thorough review by the HTTP WG. Its progress has been uncontroversial, and considered an obvious but necessary step by all that have weighed in.


## 3. Intellectual Property

The author has confirmed that they have stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79.


## 4. Other Points

There are no downrefs in this document, and the IANA Considerations appear to be correct.

The acknowledgements section is empty and can be removed in a subsequent draft, or by the RFC Editor.

# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-websockets

## 1. Summary

Mark Nottingham is the document shepherd; Francesca Palombini is the responsible Area Director.

The mechanism for running the WebSocket Protocol over a single stream of an HTTP/2 connection is equally applicable to HTTP/3, but the HTTP version-specific details need to be specified. This document describes how the mechanism is adapted for HTTP/3.

This document is being requested for publication as a Proposed Standard.


## 2. Review and Consensus

Because it is both small and extending already established functionality from HTTP/2 to HTTP/3, this document has enjoyed brief but thorough review by the HTTP WG. Its progress has been uncontroversial, and considered an obvious but necessary step by all that have weighed in.


## 3. Intellectual Property

The author has confirmed that they have stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79.


## 4. Other Points

There are no downrefs in this document, and the IANA Considerations appear to be correct.

The acknowledgements section is empty and can be removed in a subsequent draft, or by the RFC Editor.