source: wg_materials/ietf87/minutes.txt @ 2341

Last change on this file since 2341 was 2341, checked in by mnot@…, 7 years ago

Add rough minutes from Friday session

File size: 21.3 KB
Line 
1## Wednesday Session
2
3trac #470, what is cacheable?
4        change to editorial
5
6trac #475, strengthening SHOULDs
7       
8
9trac #458, requirements upon proxies for expect
10       
11
12trac #345, required headers on 304 and 206
13        this was an intentional change
14
15trac #455, put + if-match over-constrained
16
17trac #486, requiring proxies to process warn-date
18
19
20        nothing decided on any of above
21
22
23
24
25Known Startup State for HTTPS
26        no decision
27
28
29HTTP/2 issues
30        lots closed
31
32        #174, change to MUST
33
34
35various discussions pushed to Hamburg interim
36
37
38
39## Friday Session
40
41Note well reviewed.   Mark review the agenda:  HTTP and Encryption, HTTP/2 with a Transport Eye (Allison Mankin), 20 Min Flow Control, 20 Minutes Priorities, 20 min Initial Congestion Window 20 Min General Discussion/Other issues.  He notes that the primary reason for the meeting was to give a joint meeting with the Transport Area, but because of recent events he and the Security ADs felt that it was timely to have a short discussion (time bound to 15 minutes) on encryption.  The transport discussion will follow.
42
43Next Presentation, also by Mark, begins, on HTTP & Encryption.  HTTP/1.1 has no Mandatory to Implement to Security; that was an artifact on how long its been around (Larry Masinter disagrees with this characterization; the rational for allowing connections to remain un-encrypted was the same then as now.  This discussion was delayed).  SPDY introduced Madatory to Use Security; this was discussed for HTTP2.0; the working group declined, because of use cases like back end services.  The status quo is:  Server Chooses whether encryption is used or not--if the server does not offer encryption with an https URL, the client cannot use it.  It is an assymetric relationship. 
44
45There is new information; there are widespread deployments of sniffers.  More details have since been released.  As Chair, Mark felt that this was enough to re-open the discussion.  He suggests a few proposed actions--these are the start of the discussion, not an ending.  Martin notes that the scheduling conflict of TLS being against this working group means that many who care are not present.  Mark splits the discussion into HTTP/1.1 and then 2.0.  Mark notes that there are limits on what we can do for 1.1.  He proposes that we document the asymmetry and the consequences; while it does not do more than describe the issue, since we are re-describing the properties of the protocol, it would be good to do.  See slides for the proposed additions, but “servers out to implement and prefer HTTPS”.  That’s not necessarily adequate, but more might come from TLS as they document the security properties of their protocol.  He’s not looking for lots of discussion, but a sense of the room of publication of something like this.  Two hums:  do we want to pursue documenting this in the security considerations in the 1.1 drafts (probably in the first document in the series)?  Alternately is that not a good idea?
46
47Gabriel notes that the choice not to send packets is always packets.  Larry notes that he believes this is political theatre--there is no technical judgement that you can apply here.  We should focus on the technical work here.  Mark agrees that there may be a bit of political action here, but notes that the security considerations already have many corner cases reflected, and doing those and not this seems odd.  Barry asks if there are implementations that do not implement HTTPS?  Yes.
48
49First Hum:  is this an interesting discussion for documenting in our HTTP/1.1 document? Strong Hum.  The reverse:  a much weaker but still present hum.  Mark says that we will continue on the list, but will cut it off if it becomes a rat hole.
50
51Proposed HTTP/2.0 discussion of the same topic begins.  New issue, since this is a new protocol.  Mark wants to introduce the idea of equal power; a client can negotiate/require use of encryption for HTTP URIs.  He would like this discussion to become more explicit.  The second piece is proxy discover/interactions.  The interposing proxies need an answer for this; the user needs to understand what is happening and have an opportunity to say that no, this is not what is happening.  We need to think more carefully about protocol interactions.  This is *NOT* about enabling man-in-the-middle interception of encrypted traffic.  The documentation of HTTPS is for end-to-end security and that will not change.  Liaison with TLS and W3C may be required.  For the HTTP 2.0, he would like to take those hums. 
52
53Larry Masinter notes that the topic was mandatory to implement security, but some of what he said was not the same. Mark says “mandatory to offer” is closer to what he said.  Larry said proxy behavior taxonomy may be necessary.  Mark notes that if we disenfranchise proxy use cases, we will have deployment problems.  Gabriel Montenegro believes that encouraging the use of encrypted capabilities is wonderful, but he wants to understand if this disallows parties speaking without encryption?  Mark clarifies that if both parties truly want to use a clear channel, it should be possible.  Greg Maxwell notes that it may be useful to distinguish between security and encryption--e.g. authentication may require other costs over and above those of encryption.  Bob Briscoe of BT.  He hasn’t been involved since 1995, but had come for the transport bit.  He wonders if from the proxy point of view the least it can do is stop the bits flowing (client present this to a user--the proxy says “use me or you are out of luck”).
54
55Who believes that these issues are worthy of further discussion:  Hum in support:strong hum.
56Hum against:  silence. Good, and we are now at the end of the alloted time for this.
57
58Next topic, Allison Mankin’s presentation, “HTTP2.0 with a TSV Eye”.
59
60Allison introduces herself as the TSV technical advisor to the WG.  Motiviation; the transport area decided it would like someone with TCP to follow the work, but this is still an individual’s perspective.  She hopes to foster a constructive, ongoing relationship.  She introduces her “phrase book” for traveling between areas.  Puts up examples “hop-by-hop, flow control, streams”, even transport (e.g. optical transport vs. transport protocol).  That means that the ability to skim is limited--review needs time.
61
62She then puts up the 5 myths format.  Myth 1--that http 2.0 might not address and mitigate the use of many concurrent TCP connections.  Myth 2--that HTTP 2.0 may try to appropriate/duplicate windowing and data management roles of TCP.  Myth 3- that HTTP 2.0 may try to move congestion control and avoidance into the application, possibly replacing TCP with a streamlined transport without native congestion control and congestion avoidance.  Myth 4-- that prioritization in HTTP 2.0 is related to (and/or clashes with) priotization implemented in various transport and lower layer protocols.  [Mic lines were asked to stand down, so that the story can complete; note that others may have other views]
63
64Goes into Myth Busting.  For Myth 1, notes that HTTP/2.0 work so far clearly does reduce the need for concurrent TCP connections and the working group is focused on this.  For Myth 2, the frame and streams mentioned do not match the transport concepts--they serve application processing needs; this is a travelers’ phrase book problem.  Myth 3, HTTP2.0 has flow control
65functions; this is not the same as CA/CC.  This is *application service flow*, not the flow of the transport.  This allows the system to serve well-recognized HTTP intermediaries.  Some of this text is confusing to those coming with a transport eye, but this is still a myth we can bust.  For Myth 4, these are not associated with QoS, and are not described in a way that matches up with transport types *but* there is some language connecting priority frames connect to the bandwidth delay product, so it may be something to examine for transport folks.
66
67Myth 5 (the bonus myth) is that HTTP 2.0 leads to the replacement of TCP by a new transport.   Are there discussions of replacing TCP as the substrate of HTTP?  Yes, there are discussions of this, but the HTTP 2.0 work item is unequivocally tcp-mapped.  The initial congestion window experiments were removed from the spec.  TCP-Minion and QUIC are both coming along.  TSV has long acknowledged that applications can ask for things which are not the basic byte stream.  SCTP, PR-SCTP DCCP are actually representations of the transport aim to meet the needs of other customers.  So work of this type is not a problem.
68
69Allison also compliments the WG on its intensive work style.  Frequent interim meetings, github working methods, and the development of a state diagram for the stream lifecycle.  There are still points for TSV review.  GoAWAY and RST_STREAM; this still in need f review.  TSV style review of the risks of off-path attack in general--the area is sadder but wiser about these.  TSV style review of data integrity issues, e.g. binary and compressed headers.  Weak TCP checksum failure probably furthers case for “TLS everywhere” in the HTTP2.0 world.
70
71Going forward, TSV needs close listening, close reading of the review.  Also looking at research on SPDY versions may help TSV folks; pace of innovations should be resonant to TSV folks.
72Finally, A gratuitous photo fo TIergarten tapir (see slide for the photo)
73
74Mark thanks Allison for her presenation and the mic lines filled--most of the technical topics are queued up for later sections. 
75
76Eliot thanks Allison as well. He notes he has seen at least one person do even more just-in-time presentation (3 seconds in advance).  For the weak TCP checksum issue, TLS is not required, so we cannot rely on it.  Allison says it may be a carrot for using TLS, not a full requirement.  It should come up.  Mark steals the front mic, and notes that some folks have considered asking for a checksum for the headers themselves. 
77
78Bob Briscoe wants to go through 3 of the myths from a different view.  The first one--slowing the growth of more flows; there is a problem the other way around.  It is not about HTTP is doing, it is about what TSV is doing to incentives using more flows (e.g. in RMCAT measuring whether two flows are getting fairness, rather than looking at session level. AQM presents a similar issue (e.g. in fq_codel)).  In message flow control myth, notes that TSV *does* have expertise there as well and may be able to help.  Allison notes that the document notes that it can evolve and more work is needed.  On the question of stream handling, Bob reiterates that there is a lot of work in TSV on this topic, and he wonders if we will end up duplicating.  Early recognition of this is useful.  Bob also notes that there is a lot of work on latency going on, TCPMaint is where most of that is going on, but AQM as well.  TCP fast open, work on reducing the length of slow start; there has been work on TLS false start as well.
79
80Jim Gettys cannot overemphasize of the impact and collateral damage that HTTP has already imposed on the internet, limiting RTCWEB and other work.  Points to his blog, which describes the way in which HTTP1.1 was deployed gamed the system in its own favor. Bufferbloat and HoL are well known, but the damage to everything but web browsing is very heavy.  We have to drain a swamp.  We don’t want to be here again in 10 or 15 years to stop another gaming of the transport.  He really wants people to understand minion and its potential deployment path--he believes that the work can serve the web really well, and it has a straightforward deployment strategy.  It will give you a lot of what the web needs.  Cross-fertilization between that work and this needs to go forward.
81
82Michael Tuexen continues the theme and wants the cooperation between this working group and the transport.  In particular, what features and services would be valuable is really needed (byte stream?  something else?).  Other things are on the table: quic, sctp/udp.  Mapping from candidates to services needed, then deployment considerations.
83
84David Black  here as a STORM co-chair.  There is already precedent with a weak checksum (iscsi defines its own checksums).  He suggests that there is an opportunity to have a header checksum and a data checksum; this works well through proxies.  These checksums are defenses against flaky behavior, not malice.  If you want the latter, you need something else, e.g. TLS.
85
86Larry Masinter--of what you discuss, measurement may be the critical one; we need to see that http2.0 will be better in the real world.  Transport has more experience measuring in this  area and cross-fertilization would be good. Gabriel Montegro sees two subdivisions of this dialog--what is TSV doing independently of us (e.g. general services work).  The other is describing our layering more explicitly so that it becomes easier to re-layer on other things.
87A different dialog would be when HTTPbis is doing “transport-like things”, we can get help from TSV on approaches.  Flow control is one example, as the principles and algorithms may be common or pluggable.  The other point is what you mentioned about window shrinking--both TCP and SCTP strongly discourage window shrinking (should not, not must not).  In the web, there is confusion when it does happen; that may also be something we can take in and learn from.
88
89Michael Sharf, co-chair of TCPM, emphasizes that it is a bi-directional relationship; we need insight from you for evolving TCP (and TCP is still evolving).  TCP recently published an experimental RFC for increasing the window.  We also have the work on fast open, which may fit well here, since it is focused on latency.  We are interested in input there, especially on the semantics for applications.  Input is very well.  Lastly, we have a working group item on congestion window validation.  These may be of interest to you, and may be a place of
90
91Martin Stimmerling plus ones Michael’s words, but also wants to reinforce that you need to work on what’s there--looking at minion and quic is great, but we need to run on what’s there.  Mark notes that the timing with minion is problematic as adopting it now would give best results, but it is not ready. Jana thanks folks for this meeting.  He wants to say transport that we’ve been shy about talking about APIs, and that may have been a problem.  We create exhaustive but not very useful lists of transport features.  We need application developers to see APIs in clearer terms and expose them in clear terms--a service model.  Gorry Fairhurst notes that API discussions are *not* banned; David Black plus one’s.  As a Transport AD, Spencer pointed out that Jana did a touchdown sign with both hands when he got that statement.  Michael came up to say that TCPM was rechartered and that API work is in scope. Much rejoicing in the room.
92
93Jim Gettys points out that this interaction showed the value of flow queueing.  He then reiterated that a lot of this reinforces the language issues; we need common vocabulary.
94
95Roberto Peon notes that *deployed* features are the first order bit looked at by applications; is it there and will it be available are more important than any other features.  SCTP, if it had gotten past the chicken and egg, would be used today.  Roberto also noted that we have had implicit rather explicit APIs.
96
97Mirja Kuehlewind notes that she has tried to follow the HTTPbis work, but it has been hard because there is so much going. Mark Nottingham pointed to the wiki and github pages.
98
99Michael Tuexen went back to the *services* view; exact socket options may be too detailed a question.  The key question is whether the service is available.  That may be available in ways that are not direct APIs--e.g. SCTP over UDP.  A list of service requirements may be important for deciding if they can be made available, rather than what the socket options are.  Mark wonders if there is a list of available services; Michael pointed to a previous set of slides (and audio stream).  Mark looks for stuckees to own chasing this?  Michael  says he will be happy to help.   Janardhan Iyengar suggest that we have taken a jab at this in minion, but it would be great to generalize that.  Will Chan asks what it is that TSV wants HTTPBIS would describe?  He feels like the elephant in the room might be QUIC.  He wonders if folks are looking at this services question because folks are wondering why people went to QUIC.
100
101Michael Tuexen says HTTPBis needs to say “here are the features that we need” that are important enough that we would consider changing the transport protocol.  Will Chan notes that we have not done that within HTTP so far--we are building on TCP. Mark Nottingham notes that he feels a wish list exercise might be a time sink for his working group; he feels it should be transport area, hopefully not for selfish reasons.  Gorry notes is is Transport and Services, so it would be good to restore the S.  He also says that it would be good to have that list with a focus on what is really needed, not a wish list.
102
103Martin says we have offered QUIC time at the TSVWG, and they have been told they will come, but later.
104
105Andrew McGregor notes that there is knowledge in AQM on how to make message-based transports work well, and it may be useful to coordinate there.  He also notes that splitting the agenda and publishing different conflict lists would be useful.
106
107Roberto notes that he has a list here, and he can send it out, but he believes transport people know all of it and are working on it, but it needs to get deployed.
108
109Patrick McManus knows the transport area and has been active there, but he is here as an HTTP 2.0 guy.  In that guys, he notes that the effort is to work with TCPs that are in the wild.  Those are the transport equivalent of our middlebox discussion--what can we do in those constraints?  Mark agrees that this is a good point.   Patrick also notes that we can still work on these and share data, but note that deployment and iteration is critical.
110
111Will Chan then presents some data on initial congestion window data.  Data not on agenda, but will be uploaded.  He shows a slide of data from Chrome’s beta channel users (not all uses, but a small set that have opt-ed in to sharing anonymized data).  Roberto notes that “small” is relative, but statiscally significant group.  Will explains the SPDY setting that was a persistent setting used when there was a successful, graceful close.  Chart limited to stable connections (100kbs or more of data).  The x-axis is CWND in packets; the y-axis is the percentile (histogram).  Notes that SPDY connections are initialized to 32, which is the default for SPDY.  Lars asks if this available as a CDF?  Yes, that’s the next graph.  Shows the data.  Patrick McManus notes that they have “extremely” similar data.  Allison notes that a fairly significant number have a reduced window by the end of the session (initial congestion window of 32, except when information is present which otherwise colors the data).  A lot of the reason it is below 32 is because of that. 
112
113Larry asks if there is data from mod_spdy or others?  Will Chan says that Google does not have that data.  Lars Eggert notes that TCPM had a large discussion on this and came up with 10? Why is that Google is using 32 for this instead of iw10?  Basically because it is trying to compare experience with a multi-tcp connection experience of 50 or so because of domain sharding; that’s 500 at iw10, vs 32.  Martin suggests that this discussion should continue in TCPM, instead of here.  Will Chan takes an action to have it done--he may pass it to Jerry or someone else.
114
115Jim Gettys goes back to collateral damage creating head of line blocking in sigle queue devices--creates 100s of milliseconds of latency in broadband scenarios.  If you want RTCWEB to work, you need to get this solved.  Will Chan notes that we are providing a platform--if the apps on the top of the platform try to game the system.  Jana notes that host limits on the connection provide limits 6 doing 4 wouldn’t be much better and it can be much than 6 connections.  We can talk about this, but it is a problem worth solving.
116
117Bob Briscoe hides a possible myth or fallacy about the ability to use a large congestion window.  This is a clocked window at the termination, but not clocked at the restart.  If you have a server interface capable of pacing, that you could get some of this advantage back. Will Chan notes that we have already removed this from HTTP 2.0; Bob notes that it would be good if we can get it back.  Will agrees, but he clarifies that the existing mechanism was flawed, and that he recognizes. 
118
119Eliot Lear asks if this based on IP address?  No.  Will clarifies that this is essentially a cookie--the client connects based on a stored setting. 
120
121Martin Thompson possible exhibits a bias that some web applications may not have the same characteristics because of the server distribution--for many people this will be within low RTT.  Jokes about CDNs ensue.  Mirja reiterates that this is a TCPM topic, and it is scary that it is being presented here for the second time.   Mark clarifies that this is the first HTTPbis has seen the data.  Mirja is concerned that a solution coming from other groups may not have the right data.
122
123Will notes that Google runs lot of experiments.  Jerry Chu notes that he has been working with this data and he has been trying to share it.  They are working on pacing now as a result.  Mark asks for continuing that information sharing.
124
125Martin will invite the HTTPBis folks to come to the transport area meeting.  Mark says thanks and encourages clear agenda items to encourage participation.
126
127Then next meeting is Hamburg, next week.
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.