Early Review of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-01
review-ietf-alto-new-transport-01-artart-early-dawkins-2022-07-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Early Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2022-07-15
Requested 2022-06-22
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Roland Schott , Y. Richard Yang , Kai Gao , Lauren Delwiche , Lachlan Keller
I-D last updated 2022-07-15
Completed reviews Artart Early review of -01 by Spencer Dawkins (diff)
Secdir Early review of -07 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Tsvart Early review of -07 by Dr. Bernard D. Aboba
Artart Early review of -07 by Spencer Dawkins
Httpdir Early review of -07 by Martin Thomson
Comments 
We are seeking for this review so that issues/advice are taken into account early in the process.

We are particularly interested in comments about the handling of H3, especially with regards to the guidelines in RFC9250 about HTTP versioning.

The current version focuses on H2 with the intent to cover at least common H2/H3 functionalities.

Of course, comments related to other considerations in the draft are more than welcome.

Thank you
Assignment Reviewer Spencer Dawkins
State Completed
Review review-ietf-alto-new-transport-01-artart-early-dawkins-2022-07-15
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/kdQlNP06sqJDVcBFqHi-3dLLJj4
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready with Issues
Completed 2022-07-15
review-ietf-alto-new-transport-01-artart-early-dawkins-2022-07-15-00
My apologies for a late early review(!?!).

I might be confused about this, but I see that this specification uses these
HTTP2 settings

0x02     SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH (a BCP14 “MUST”), and
0x03     SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS (a BCP14 “must”)

RFC 9114 reserves these in the parallel HTTP/3 registry
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#iana-setting-table), and says this
about these reserved values in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#section-7.2.4.1:

7.2.4.1. Defined SETTINGS Parameters

Setting identifiers that were defined in [HTTP/2] where there is no
corresponding HTTP/3 setting have also been reserved (Section 11.2.2). These
reserved settings MUST NOT be sent, and their receipt MUST be treated as a
connection error of type H3_SETTINGS_ERROR.

Is that going to be a problem?

I’m also wondering if you need in-order delivery of results across multiple
QUIC streams. If you do, could you please let me know?

I hope this is helpful.

p.s. I should also let someone know that the HTML version of this draft says
it's -00 in the heading, but the date matches the date for -01, so I THINK I
was looking at the right version, but I've never seen that before.