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? >> - 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/CAARdPYdyE9YtYL-4s9jixAAdTBBoYL7wirerrpsDpwzE%2B6mSUA%40mail.gmail.com.
