Subject: Re: [Webtransport] WebTransport Interop Event

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 17:49:06 -0700

An update on WebTransport interop testing and the IETF 112 Hackathon.

As you may have noticed, the WebTransport API implementation in Chromium
has been brought up to date with the latest version of the specification:
https://w3c.github.io/webtransport/

While the changes largely represent "bikeshedding", they have broken sample
code previously posted on web.dev and other places.

An updated "counter" site that functions with Chrome Canary version
96.0.4653.3 is available here:
https://webrtc.internaut.com/wt/

My understanding is that protocol changes are coming in Chromium that will
affect HTTP/3 datagram support.  While the changes will better align the
implementation with recent protocol specifications, server-side code will
need to be updated in order to retain compatibility.

So as to make the best use of time in our interoperability testing, it
seems prudent to postpone the interop tests after these changes land so
that we can do our testing on more stable ground.

Assuming that these statements are correct (please comment if not), and
assuming that the changes (and required server updates) land in time, I
would propose that we organize WebTransport interop testing as part of the
IETF 112 Hackathon, which will take place from November 1-5, 2021, as
described here:
https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/hackathons/112-hackathon/

Of course, if the changes land earlier, we can always get a head start.

For those of you who are interested in using WebTransport for transporting
media (e.g. Video over QUIC), I have posted an update on the status of
other Web media APIs such as WebCodecs, here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/etGPRo7X4vMBTVHFF1D81y95O4c/

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 3:42 PM Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> FWIW, there is a working version of the "counter" test page that works
> with Chrome canary 95.0.4623.2 hosted here:
> https://webrtc.internaut.com/wt/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:27 AM Victor Vasiliev <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>> The anticipated diff is what's in the edtior's draft now + issues from
>> the last interim.  I also hope to target a newer version of the
>> h3-datagram, though this will depend on how the discussion about tokens/etc
>> goes.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 7:41 PM Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 4:51 AM Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Victor indicates that -02 would be a better target (though it is not on
>>>> the archive yet).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> All I'm really trying to figure out is how much work there is to brush
>>> up some old code I had that spoke WebTransport.
>>>
>>> What is the anticipated diff between 01 and 02? 01 targeted
>>> draft-schinazi-masque-h3-datagram-04, but  the current editors copy implies
>>> draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-03, what changed the format of datagram
>>> frames. Maybe that is just an artefact of the editors copy, but right now I
>>> can't tell.
>>>
>>> Aside from I-Ds, it would help to clarify if the echo/counter examples
>>> are working on payload or if they include header elements.  Appreciate
>>> there's example code but even just a sentence of prose could help avoid
>>> expectation mismatch. Would also be good to understand if there is a common
>>> URI pattern for the CONNECT requests.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lucas
>>>
>>>