Hi Mark,

understood. However, given this is version specific, I'm questioning if we 
should actually convert a whole stream into a tunnel with h3 rather than 
unnecessary sticking to the same model as used for h2.

Mirja


On 19.10.20, 01:42, "Mark Nottingham" <[email protected]> wrote:



    > On 16 Oct 2020, at 10:44 am, Mirja Kuehlewind 
<[email protected]> wrote:
    > 
    > HI Lucas,
    >  
    > RFC7231 defines CONNECT originally like this:
    >  
    > “The CONNECT method requests that the recipient establish a tunnel to
    >    the destination origin server identified by the request-target and,
    >    if successful, thereafter restrict its behavior to blind forwarding
    >    of packets, in both directions, until the tunnel is closed.”
    >  
    > So I would interpret that the connection is not really a HTTP connection 
anymore after it has concluded the CONNECT. Again in HTTP/2 this did work 
because of multiplexing but in HTTP/3 is would work again and effectively maybe 
be the more flexible solution.

    In the current revision of the spec 
<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=cfef5661-914ff8ac-cfef16fa-866132fe445e-03675e5a9023d07a&q=1&e=ca64d89b-a8c1-4842-81bf-58f120339203&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhttpwg.org%2Fhttp-core%2Fdraft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html%23CONNECT>,
 that's followed by:

    > Because CONNECT changes the request/response nature of an HTTP 
connection, specific HTTP versions might have different ways of mapping its 
semantics into the protocol's wire format.

    Note that it *doesn't* say (in either version) that the *connection* is 
converted into a tunnel; rather, only that one is established. As we now more 
explicitly point out, the mapping to transport connections depends on the 
version of the protocol in use; in h3, it isn't the whole connection.

    Additional background here: 
<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=21efee0c-7f4f40c1-21efae97-866132fe445e-86d1213e0f8bf20b&q=1&e=ca64d89b-a8c1-4842-81bf-58f120339203&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fhttpwg%2Fhttp-core%2Fissues%2F144>

    Cheers,


    --
    Mark Nottingham   
https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3f3b8401-619b2acc-3f3bc49a-866132fe445e-607fe695c30ded20&q=1&e=ca64d89b-a8c1-4842-81bf-58f120339203&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F


Reply via email to