Thank you! We'll land the shipping CL <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3208466> after addressing TAG review comments.
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 1:07 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: > 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/CABihn6Eanq5vp7Cuj7XFh-P1rkNM9_0zV_V%3D4UT%2Br_Y7TzWS_A%40mail.gmail.com.
