LGTM3 It's exciting to see this shipping! Lack of datagram networking has been a hole in the platform for a long time.
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 1:18 AM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > *LGTM2* to ship without certificate fingerprints. It'd be great to ensure > public documentation for this includes the fallback mechanism we want > developers to implement. (both in the web.dev article and future MDN > documentation). > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:19 PM Mike West <mk...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> LGTM1, to ship this without the certificate fingerprint portion of 349 >> discussed above. There's still some conversation to be had there, and I >> think it's worth finishing the discussion before shipping it since it's >> quite clearly separable. I'd suggest shipping that as a separate intent if >> that's the way the conversation goes. >> >> I appreciate Philip's comments as well, and I'm happy to see that y'all >> have already put up a PR to add CSP support. I think we should probably >> alter the CSP spec to make your PR more clear, but that's not something I >> think we ought to block on. >> >> I'll also note that the TAG just put this on their agenda for this coming >> week. If concerns are raised there, I would appreciate us addressing them >> thoroughly before shipping. >> >> -mike >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 4:53 PM Yutaka Hirano <yhir...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 5:51 PM Yutaka Hirano <yhir...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 5:38 PM Philip Jägenstedt <foo...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:04 AM Yutaka Hirano <yhir...@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 4:45 PM Philip Jägenstedt <foo...@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:20 PM Yutaka Hirano <yhir...@chromium.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:04 PM Philip Jägenstedt < >>>>>>>> foo...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 9:27 PM Yutaka Hirano <yhir...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Philip, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the belated reply. Comments inline: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:31 PM Philip Jägenstedt < >>>>>>>>>> foo...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi again, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've made a full pass of the intent now. I have a lot of >>>>>>>>>>> questions, but am pretty convinced we should ship this, it's just a >>>>>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>>>>> of what things need to block that, and what things can be left >>>>>>>>>>> until later. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Comments inline... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:55 AM Yutaka Hirano < >>>>>>>>>>> yhir...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> yhir...@chromium.org, vasi...@chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Explainer >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/blob/main/explainer.md >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://w3c.github.io/webtransport >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-datagram/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I skimmed https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/issues/ and see >>>>>>>>>>> multiple issues filed by other browser vendors. Are any of the >>>>>>>>>>> remaining >>>>>>>>>>> issues ones that could change the API's shape or behavior? It would >>>>>>>>>>> be good >>>>>>>>>>> to resolve any such issues, since they won't be possible to address >>>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>>> the API is locked in by sites depending on it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I believe we've addressed issues that may require breaking >>>>>>>>>> changes. You can see open >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/milestone/1>/closed >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/milestone/1?closed=1> issues >>>>>>>>>> for the initial launch (this intent). I shared our plan >>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X9-a03rtm0FqTW01nG6e7f91NAguGEv37mP964HrJlk/edit#heading=h.v9yxozj8naro> >>>>>>>>>> at a WG meeting in May >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebTransport/Meetings#WebTransport_Bi-weekly_Virtual_Meeting_.2316_late_-_May_25.2C_2021> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> we've been working to find and resolve such issues since then. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see, creating a milestone for this is really handy! Are the >>>>>>>>> remaining issue in https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/milestone/1 >>>>>>>>> not blocking then, even issue #349 >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/issues/349>? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Except for issue #349* we have consensus on discussions. As >>>>>>>> Victor commented in this thread, we can ship WebTransport *except >>>>>>>> for *customeCertificationHashes >>>>>>>> <https://w3c.github.io/webtransport/#dom-webtransportoptions-servercertificatehashes> >>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>> needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If custom certificates is a nice-to-have then shipping without it >>>>>>> seems fine to me. That would mean removing serverCertificateHashes from >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> dictionary, right? I ask because the spec also says something >>>>>>> about NotSupportedError when the protocol doesn't support it, but it >>>>>>> seems >>>>>>> better to behave as if the feature doesn't exist at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The property is protected by WebTransportCustomCertificates >>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/modules/webtransport/web_transport_options.idl>, >>>>>> so when we enable only WebTransport, the property will be invisible. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Great, thanks for confirming! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Looking through some other issues: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Can https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/issues/59 be resolved >>>>>>> for the WebPKI case? If CSP currently has no effect, then adding it >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> later could be hard because some sites could already be using CSP >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> would block it, and those sites would be broken by adding CSP >>>>>>> support later. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes I think so. We check the "connect-src" directive. It is tested as >>>>>> csp-fail.https.window.js >>>>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/webtransport/csp-fail.https.window.js> >>>>>> and csp-pass.window.js >>>>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/webtransport/csp-pass.https.window.js> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's good, the risk I was worried about doesn't exist then. Would >>>>> you consider that this behavior is required by some spec, even though it's >>>>> not mentioned in https://w3c.github.io/webtransport/? If not, then do >>>>> you think it's reasonable to prioritize the spec work for this before this >>>>> reaches stable? >>>>> >>>> >>>> This behavior should be specified, and yes I think that effort should >>>> be prioritized. I'm happy to work on that. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I made a PR for this: https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/pull/367 >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> - https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/issues/175 sounds >>>>>>> editorial but doesn't have that label. If any code would change as a >>>>>>> result >>>>>>> of fixing it, should this be done before shipping? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this is to describe our current protection and won't affect >>>>>> implementation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/issues/236 has no >>>>>>> discussion, could it have any impact on implementation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is about how to describe algorithms in the spec in terms of >>>>>> threading, and this won't impact implementation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Again, thanks for confirming! >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>> 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/CABihn6HK5uwpsnVpZurqhgtzMOb%3Ddee17Aakf9COanf_E-8ioQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABihn6HK5uwpsnVpZurqhgtzMOb%3Ddee17Aakf9COanf_E-8ioQ%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/CAKXHy%3DdUMf59AFFVnTCYvq4h919xFJf6-9%2BOU%3DT%2B80NyD6a_RQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAKXHy%3DdUMf59AFFVnTCYvq4h919xFJf6-9%2BOU%3DT%2B80NyD6a_RQ%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/CAL5BFfWXezTr_63-fHJZ4A3YaEui17WxY0Aw-ARRUDmvDqyqKA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfWXezTr_63-fHJZ4A3YaEui17WxY0Aw-ARRUDmvDqyqKA%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/CAFUtAY-%3Dumk52UP%2BzrG9TLUPFvansBgtTCce-sqqB3NWZvkW9w%40mail.gmail.com.
