Rick, thanks for question, I will create a PR on the ALPS RFC draft to document the new code point regarding the early experiment.
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:15:39 AM UTC-5 Yoav Weiss wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:48 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Oof, I agree it's not good that the only documentation for the actual >> code point value is in Chromium code - that's the sort of thing our blink >> I2S process is supposed to prevent. In addition to confusion, there's also >> potential IP-risk downsides to this. Our blink process is generally to >> block shipping on the existence of some specification for everything >> necessary for a compatible implementation in a forum that ensures IP >> protection. While this isn't typically an adoption barrier for many >> companies, I know it has been in the past for some (including Microsoft). >> This doesn't mean we have to block on getting consensus in the "right" >> standards venue, we can just do a monkey-patch spec in a venue like the >> WICG, or an unlanded PR in a formal WG where the PR counts as an IP >> contribution. Then we can ship it as an "incubation" while doing the >> standards maturation work in parallel. Erik, can you comment on the extent >> to which such incubation spec work would help with Microsoft adoption? >> >> Victor, is there any chance you can throw something together quickly >> (spec PR or monkey-patch) that would cover the gaps in what's necessary for >> compatible implementations? This particular delta seems very tiny and >> straightforward to me, so I was originally thinking I'd just approve it. >> But in principle I don't think we should be continuing to approve changes >> to APIs which we realize are struggling with adoption due to the standards >> work not quite being up to our I2S bar. >> > > +1 to defining these codepoints somewhere. Where are such codepoints > typically defined? I'd have assumed they'd go into one of the relevant > I-Ds.. > > >> >> Erik, thank you for your offer of help on the standardization front! It >> definitely sounds to me like we should be pushing on the full standards >> effort in parallel to this specific intent. Having Microsoft and Google >> work together on that would hopefully be able to accelerate it. >> >> Rick >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:40 AM 'Victor Tan' via blink-dev < >> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> To be clarify, currently David is not working on the standardizing ALPS >>> feature. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5 Victor Tan wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Erik, >>>> We are actively working on it, but we need to put more efforts to >>>> standardization. >>>> In the last serval IETF, David is the only person is talking about the >>>> ALPS feature. We'd glad to combine more efforts to move it forward to >>>> standardization. >>>> >>>> Bests, >>>> Victor >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 5:24:25 PM UTC-5 Erik Anderson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is the ALPS draft being actively worked on? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Various teams at Microsoft that own web sites leveraging client hints >>>>> have expressed interest in using it, but the lack of a finalized standard >>>>> has significantly slowed conversations with the teams that own the server >>>>> code that would need to add support first. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Are you looking for help in moving standardization forward? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <yoav...@chromium.org> >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2024 7:39 AM >>>>> *To:* Victor Tan <vict...@chromium.org> >>>>> *Cc:* blink-dev <blin...@chromium.org>; Chris Harrelson < >>>>> chri...@chromium.org>; David Benjamin <davi...@chromium.org>; Mike >>>>> Taylor <mike...@chromium.org> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: New ALPS code point >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is the old code point defined somewhere? Would it be possible to add >>>>> such a definition to one of the I-Ds? Or is this something that's not >>>>> traditionally defined in IETF drafts? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 4:03 PM Victor Tan <vict...@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Currently, It's on the code: >>>>> https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/+/master/include/openssl/tls1.h?pli=1#247 >>>>> >>>>> Once we standardize the ALPS RFC draft, we can finalize the value. >>>>> Hope this helps. >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 7:50:46 PM UTC-5 Chris Harrelson >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for clarifying. Last question: where in the specifications is >>>>> the new 17613 code point documented? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:59 PM Mike Taylor <mike...@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In our OWNERS meeting this week, there was some confusion on what's >>>>> being proposed here (which is understandable, this isn't quite a typical >>>>> intent for web exposed feature). Here's a summary of what we're trying to >>>>> accomplish: >>>>> >>>>> 1) We shipped support for the ACCEPT_CH frame over h2 and h3 back in >>>>> M96, which relies on the TLS ALPS protocol extension. >>>>> 2) There are 2 parts to this: the client being able to understand >>>>> ALPS/ACCEPT_CH (and in return do something useful), and the server being >>>>> able to send it. >>>>> 3) Because of a (long fixed) bug present in Chromium's implementation, >>>>> it's risky for a server to send too much data via ACCEPT_CH, so it's >>>>> usefulness is potentially limited. >>>>> 4) In order to guarantee that older clients don't have this bug, we >>>>> propose to rev the version (aka, code point) at the protocol layer. This >>>>> way, if a server sends the new code point and the client understands it, >>>>> it >>>>> can send a larger payload without triggering the bug (which may result in >>>>> sad things like a connection being refused). >>>>> 5) This is sort of web observable, but right now if servers that >>>>> support the old code point continue to send the old code point - nothing >>>>> will break. Chromium will support both for now, with hopes to deprecate >>>>> and >>>>> remove the older one in the future when we're confident it won't result >>>>> in >>>>> performance regressions for servers sending ACCEPT_CH (since this is a >>>>> performance optimization). >>>>> >>>>> I hope that helps clear it up, and I'm sure Victor or David will chime >>>>> in if I'm getting something wrong. :) >>>>> >>>>> And to be clear - this isn't a request for a deprecation or removal >>>>> (yet), but for shipping the new code point. >>>>> >>>>> On 1/17/24 11:16 AM, Victor Tan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If the server received the new code point, while it doesn't support, >>>>> the ALPS extension will ignore. This also mean client might not know the >>>>> server's client hints preferences before the first request. Currently, >>>>> only >>>>> few sites using the ALPS extension. As TLS extension is negotiated, the >>>>> server need to support both code points during the transition period, >>>>> after >>>>> some time, the server can drop the old one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5 Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 12:08:33 AM UTC+1 Victor Tan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *Contact emails* >>>>> >>>>> vict...@chromium.org, mike...@chromium.org, davi...@chromium.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Explainer* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/WICG/client-hints-infrastructure/blob/main/reliability.md >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Specification* >>>>> >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davidben-http-client-hint-reliability >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-httpbis-alps >>>>> >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vvv-tls-alps >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Summary* >>>>> >>>>> Shipping a new code point (17613) for TLS ALPS extension to allow >>>>> adding more data in the ACCEPT_CH HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 frame. The ACCEPT_CH >>>>> HTTP/2 frame with the existing TLS ALPS extension code point (17513) had >>>>> an >>>>> arithmetic overflow bug <https://crbug.com/1292069> in the Chrome >>>>> ALPS decoder. It limits the capability to add more than 128 bytes data >>>>> (in >>>>> theory, the problem range is 128 bytes to 255 bytes) to the ACCEPT_CH >>>>> frame. With the new ALPS code point, we can fully mitigate the issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Blink component* >>>>> >>>>> Blink>Network>ClientHints >>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component%3ABlink%3ENetwork%3EClientHints%2C&can=2> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *TAG review* >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/549 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *TAG review status* >>>>> >>>>> Closed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Risks* >>>>> *Interoperability and Compatibility* >>>>> >>>>> This is switching to a new code point for the TLS ALPS extension. It >>>>> won’t change the design of ALPS and ACCEPT_CH mechanism implementation. >>>>> The main source of compatibility risk is that it causes conflicts with >>>>> ALPS >>>>> negotiation since some clients could still use the old code point while >>>>> others are switching to use the new code point. The ALPS extension could >>>>> be ignored if the code point doesn’t match during negotiation, which >>>>> means >>>>> the server's client hints preferences won’t be delivered in the ACCEPT_CH >>>>> HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 frame. We mitigate this by enabling servers to support >>>>> both code points, monitoring both code points usage and removing the old >>>>> ALPS code point support in a future intent once the usage is low enough. >>>>> We >>>>> also split the rollout into two phases: we first start to enable the new >>>>> ALPS code point for ACCEPT_CH with HTTP/3 frame in a slow rollout, and >>>>> then eventually enable the new code point with HTTP/2 frame. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does the server have an indication if the client in question supports >>>>> the newer code point? >>>>> >>>>> If not, what would we expect servers that support the newer code point >>>>> to do? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Edge*: No signals >>>>> >>>>> *Firefox*: Pending >>>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/510 >>>>> *Safari*: Pending >>>>> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2021-April/031768.html >>>>> >>>>> *Web/Framework developers*: >>>>> https://twitter.com/Sawtaytoes/status/1369031447940526080 >>>>> https://twitter.com/_jayphelps/status/1369023028735148032 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Activation* >>>>> >>>>> The site’s TLS and HTTP serving application would need to be updated >>>>> to support this new code point. We aren’t aware of many sites using this >>>>> feature yet, however. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Debuggability* >>>>> >>>>> No special DevTools support needed. The effects of the code point >>>>> change of ACCEPT_CH frame will be visible in the DevTools’ network tab. >>>>> Also, the NetLog will record the ACCEPT_CH frame value if TLS ALPS >>>>> extension is negotiated successfully. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>>> Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?* >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Is this feature fully tested by **web-platform-tests* >>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>> *?* >>>>> >>>>> No, this feature is tested with browser-side tests. We can’t test >>>>> TLS-adjacent features currently through web-platform-tests. See this >>>>> issue: >>>>> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/20159 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Flag name* >>>>> >>>>> UseNewAlpsCodepointHttp2 >>>>> >>>>> UseNewAlpsCodepointQUIC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Tracking bug* >>>>> >>>>> b/289087287 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Launch bug* >>>>> >>>>> https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4299022 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status* >>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5149147365900288 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>> >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c704d985-a5cc-4e5e-99b0-1f78cc4428e6%40chromium.org >>>>> >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c704d985-a5cc-4e5e-99b0-1f78cc4428e6%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>> >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOmohSJQu%2BjtN9hQ302XVW1_Y1b8BUYQUDr4ujMavPU1vU7%2Bzw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOmohSJQu%2BjtN9hQ302XVW1_Y1b8BUYQUDr4ujMavPU1vU7%2Bzw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/fbfcefbb-637e-428b-9ca2-3c879e2af1e2n%40chromium.org >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/fbfcefbb-637e-428b-9ca2-3c879e2af1e2n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/4fbceff8-9087-42f3-926a-408b79108841n%40chromium.org.
