LGTM1 Thanks for including these values in the I-D.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:17 PM Victor Tan <victor...@chromium.org> wrote: > the code point PR is merged. Feel free to take a look again. Thanks. > > On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 3:34:44 PM UTC-5 Victor Tan wrote: > >> create a PR for the code point change on the RFC draft, will work on >> there: https://github.com/vasilvv/tls-alps/pull/15, thanks. >> >> On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 1:55:56 PM UTC-5 Erik Anderson wrote: >> >>> 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. 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> 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/CAOmohS%2B5KAs3j9izP4t1p%2B9cPAkQ_PJ1ffuWHxMnL08P60EmVw%40mail.gmail.com.
