Thanks, it will be helpful to make sure this is documented outside of Chromium. I will also chat with some folks on Microsoft’s end that both own server implementations and have more IETF experience to explore how we can help with moving things forward.
From: Victor Tan <victor...@chromium.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 9:00 AM To: blink-dev <blink-dev@chromium.org> Cc: Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org>; blink-dev <blink-dev@chromium.org>; Erik Anderson <erik.ander...@microsoft.com>; Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org>; David Benjamin <david...@chromium.org>; Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org>; Victor Tan <victor...@chromium.org>; Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> Subject: Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: New ALPS code point You don't often get email from victor...@chromium.org<mailto:victor...@chromium.org>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:yoav...@chromium.org>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 7:39 AM To: Victor Tan <vict...@chromium.org<mailto:vict...@chromium.org>> Cc: blink-dev <blin...@chromium.org<mailto:blin...@chromium.org>>; Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org<mailto:chri...@chromium.org>>; David Benjamin <davi...@chromium.org<mailto:davi...@chromium.org>>; Mike Taylor <mike...@chromium.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:vict...@chromium.org>, mike...@chromium.org<mailto:mike...@chromium.org>, davi...@chromium.org<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/MN2PR00MB08773EE1A907BE2BF752BFC9F47B2%40MN2PR00MB0877.namprd00.prod.outlook.com.
