docs(http): defer h3/WebTransport (ADR-044); browsers use WebSocket for v1

Working through the WebTransport implementation path surfaced a scope
question distinct from the hedging-as-deferral anti-pattern ADR-038 was
written to correct. Three findings drove the re-evaluation:

1. The browser bidirectional call-protocol path doesn't require
   WebTransport — WebSocket is full-duplex, EventEnvelope fits a WS
   binary message boundary cleanly, and the Dispatcher is stream-
   agnostic (ADR-012). What WebTransport gives over WebSocket (native
   multi-stream multiplexing, the ALPN-as-stream substrate) benefits the
   proxy use case, not the call protocol.
2. WebTransport is a draft standard (-07, not RFC) on an experimental
   Rust dependency stack (wtransport/h3 both self-describe as not
   production-ready). Either choice puts a draft protocol on the
   security surface of the first release.
3. The ALPN-stream-proxy (ADR-040) is speculative — its WASM parser
   consumers (browser SSH/SFTP/git clients) don't exist yet, and the
   downstream crates WebTransport deferral blocks (SSH, git, SFTP)
   expose their ALPNs natively over QUIC regardless.

This is a scope decision (per ADR-009: a decision that 'genuinely
doesn't need to be made yet because the use case isn't concrete'), not
hedging. The reversal trigger is concrete: a real deployment needing
the ALPN-stream-proxy.

ADR-038 is superseded (its anti-pattern correction stands; its specific
'h3 in scope now' decision is reversed). ADR-040 and ADR-043 are
parked, not superseded — their designs revive unchanged when WebTransport
revives, with §2 (bidirectionality) and §3 (no-PeerId overlay) of ADR-043
transferring to WebSocket for v1.

ADR-044 §5 also states the 'browser is not a peer' rationale that
ADR-034 §4 closed without arguing: peer = addressable node in the
call-protocol peer graph (stable PeerId, PeerRef::Specific-reachable,
identity stable across reconnects), not 'any endpoint that exchanges
calls during a live session.' A browser is the second but not the first
(no stable crypto identity of its own, ephemeral, not addressable from
other nodes). ADR-034 §4 and Assumption 2 are amended by reference.

The wtransport-vs-hyperium dependency question is recorded (not
resolved — WebTransport is deferred) in ADR-044 §'Research note' and
webtransport.md so the revival doesn't re-derive it: wtransport probably
isn't the right choice (axum-bridge friction — it owns its own HTTP
serving path); the hyperium stack (h3 + h3-quinn + h3-webtransport) fits
the axum integration better but its server-side WebTransport API needs
verification before commitment.

Reviewed by architecture-review subagent; all critical cross-reference
issues (ADR-034 §5 stale 'in scope' assertion, ADR-036 Context listing
h3 as implemented, webtransport.md Design Decisions table) resolved.
This commit is contained in:
2026-06-30 05:55:55 +00:00
parent 78b226d31b
commit 125cb49cc4
13 changed files with 769 additions and 176 deletions

View File

@@ -203,8 +203,8 @@ A browser reaching a hub over WebTransport (or HTTPS) is served by the
hub's `alknet-http` handler. The browser authenticates by **bearer
token** (HTTP `Authorization`), resolved by the hub's
`IdentityProvider::resolve_from_token` against the hub's
`PeerEntry.auth_token_hash` or `ApiKeyEntry`. The browser is **not** an
alknet peer on the hub's side either — it does not get a `PeerId`, does
`PeerEntry.auth_token_hash` or `ApiKeyEntry`. The browser is **not an
alknet peer on the hub's side either** — it does not get a `PeerId`, does
not enter `PeerCompositeEnv`, and its "ops" are HTTP routes / WebTransport
streams served by `alknet-http`, not entries in the call-protocol
peer-keyed overlay. The hub's `PeerEntry` for the browser (if any) is
@@ -214,6 +214,29 @@ This keeps the peer graph populated only by full alknet nodes (role 3
hubs and role-3-style spoke nodes), never by browsers or pure HTTP
clients.
> **Amendment (rationale added by
> [ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md) §5):** The
> closure above is correct but states the conclusion without the
> supporting argument. The distinction that makes it correct is:
> **"peer" in alknet means an addressable node in the call-protocol peer
> graph** — a stable `PeerId`, reachable via `PeerRef::Specific`, whose
> ops land in `PeerCompositeEnv`, whose identity is stable across
> reconnects. It does *not* mean "any endpoint that exchanges calls
> during a live session." A browser is the second thing but not the
> first, on three concrete grounds: (1) no stable cryptographic identity
> of its own (it presents a bearer token the hub issued; nothing to
> pin), (2) ephemeral (close the tab → connection dies → the
> connection-local overlay dies with it; a `PeerEntry` keyed to a browser
> would be dead within seconds), (3) not addressable from other nodes
> (another alknet node has no way to reach "the browser currently
> connected to hub-A"; the hub holds it as a live `CallConnection`
> handle, not a peer-graph entry). The connection-local Layer 2 overlay
> (ADR-043 §3, the inbound mirror of §2 above) is what gives the browser
> bidirectional-call capability *without* peer-graph membership. This
> rationale is transport-agnostic — it applies to WebSocket (the v1
> browser path, ADR-044) and to WebTransport (when it revives) equally.
> See ADR-044 §5 for the full statement.
### 5. WebTransport relay-as-proxy is a transport-only feature, scoped separately
A **WebTransport proxy** that terminates the browser's WebTransport
@@ -237,12 +260,15 @@ is a real feature, especially for the browser-to-P2P-peer case. It is
> WebTransport lands." That framing was a residual of the "two-way door
> as deferral" anti-pattern (ADR-009 §"What this framework is NOT")
> that [ADR-038](038-http3-and-webtransport-as-first-class.md) was later
> written to reject — `h3`/WebTransport is a first-class transport, in
> scope, not deferred. The *auth-model* decision in this §5 (the proxy
> is transport-only; it does not change identity resolution) is
> unchanged. The *scope* question (does the proxy belong in
> `alknet-http` or a separate relay crate?) is tracked as OQ-38 — a
> genuine scope question, not a deferral.
> written to reject. ADR-038 has since been **superseded by
> [ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md)**, which
> re-defers `h3`/WebTransport as a genuine scope decision (the browser
> bidirectional path uses WebSocket; WebTransport revives when a concrete
> ALPN-stream-proxy use case arrives). The *auth-model* decision in this
> §5 (the proxy is transport-only; it does not change identity
> resolution) is unchanged by either ADR. The *scope* question (does the
> proxy belong in `alknet-http` or a separate relay crate?) is tracked
> as OQ-38 — a genuine scope question, not a deferral.
### 6. On-chain / smart-contract peer discovery fits the OQ-36 adapter pattern
@@ -340,11 +366,17 @@ It is noted here only to confirm it does not reopen OQ-37.
intended — it is the same model iroh uses.
2. **Browsers never enter the peer-keyed overlay.** A browser is
served by `alknet-http` (HTTP routes / WebTransport streams) and
authenticates by bearer token. The hub may have a `PeerEntry` for
the browser's token (to authorize it), but the browser is not a
`PeerId`-bearing peer. This is the explicit closure of the
"browser as peer" path — browsers are clients, not peers.
served by `alknet-http` (HTTP routes / WebTransport streams /, per
ADR-044, WebSocket) and authenticates by bearer token. The hub may
have a `PeerEntry` for the browser's token (to authorize it), but the
browser is not a `PeerId`-bearing peer. This is the explicit closure
of the "browser as peer" path — browsers are clients, not peers.
**The rationale** (addressability vs. bidirectionality — a browser
has no stable identity of its own, is ephemeral, and is not
addressable from other nodes) is stated in
[ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md) §5, which
amends §4 above by reference. The closure applies transport-
agnostically.
3. **X.509 fingerprint pinning is only for known hubs.** Pinning an
X.509 fingerprint for an arbitrary public API is brittle (cert
@@ -395,13 +427,19 @@ It is noted here only to confirm it does not reopen OQ-37.
repo/adapter pattern (trait in core, adapter additive in a separate
crate)
- `docs/research/alknet-http/phase-0-findings.md` — DH-2 (h3 /
WebTransport; the original "deferred past v1" framing is rejected by
ADR-038); the WebTransport-relay-as-proxy feature noted in this ADR's
§5 is a transport-only feature whose scope is tracked as OQ-38
- [ADR-038](038-http3-and-webtransport-as-first-class.md) — `h3` /
WebTransport is a first-class transport, not deferred (amends the
"deferral bucket" wording in this ADR's §5; the auth-model decision
stands)
WebTransport; the original "deferred past v1" framing was rejected by
ADR-038, which is now itself superseded by
[ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md) — a genuine
scope deferral); the WebTransport-relay-as-proxy feature noted in this
ADR's §5 is a transport-only feature whose scope is tracked as OQ-38
- [ADR-038](038-http3-and-webtransport-as-first-class.md) — **superseded
by [ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md)**.
ADR-038 amended the "deferral bucket" wording in this ADR's §5 (the
auth-model decision stands); ADR-044 reverses ADR-038's "h3 in scope
now" decision as a scope deferral (the browser bidirectional path
uses WebSocket; WebTransport revives when a concrete ALPN-stream-proxy
use case arrives). The "browser is not a peer" closure in §4 above is
amended by ADR-044 §5 with the addressability rationale.
- `docs/research/references/iroh/iroh/04-sub-crates.md` — iroh's
transport relay (`iroh-relay`), referenced to distinguish it from
alknet's hub role

View File

@@ -7,7 +7,8 @@ Proposed
## Context
`alknet-http` implements `ProtocolHandler` for the standard HTTP ALPNs (`h2`,
`http/1.1`, `h3`). An inbound HTTP request that targets an alknet operation
`http/1.1`; `h3`/WebTransport is deferred per
[ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md)). An inbound HTTP request that targets an alknet operation
must become a call-protocol `call.requested` dispatch — the HTTP handler is a
*projection* of the call protocol, not a parallel routing layer. The
question is how an HTTP request maps to an operation invocation.
@@ -96,9 +97,11 @@ A `Subscription` operation served over HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/2 projects its
`call.responded` stream as Server-Sent Events. Each `call.responded` event
becomes an SSE `data:` frame; `call.completed` closes the SSE stream;
`call.aborted` closes the stream with an SSE error event. This is the
HTTP/1.1 + HTTP/2 streaming projection. Over WebTransport (`h3`), the
subscription projects directly onto a WebTransport bidirectional stream —
no SSE framing is needed (see ADR-038 for the WebTransport path).
HTTP/1.1 + HTTP/2 streaming projection. Over WebSocket (the v1 browser
bidirectional path, ADR-044), the subscription projects directly onto the
WS connection — `call.responded` events as binary WS messages, no SSE
framing. WebTransport (`h3`) would project onto WebTransport bidirectional
streams but is deferred per ADR-044.
### Auth

View File

@@ -2,7 +2,24 @@
## Status
Proposed
**Superseded by [ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md).**
This ADR's *correction* of the "two-way-door-as-deferral" anti-pattern
(ADR-009 §"What this framework is NOT") stands as a document — the
anti-pattern is real, and the reasoning that rejected deferral-as-hedging is
correct. However, this ADR's *specific decision* — that `h3`/WebTransport is
in scope now, not deferred — is reversed by ADR-044. ADR-044 is a
**scope** decision (permitted by ADR-009: "not needed for the current
scope"), not a hedging deferral: the browser bidirectional path uses
WebSocket (RFC 6455, mature, native axum support), the ALPN-stream-proxy
(ADR-040) is the speculative use case whose deferral is the reversal
trigger, and the draft-standard + experimental-deps surface area is not
justified by a concrete v1 requirement.
ADR-040 and ADR-043 are **parked, not superseded** — their designs revive
unchanged when WebTransport revives. See ADR-044 for the full scope rationale,
the reversal trigger, and the research note on the wtransport-vs-hyperium
dependency choice (recorded for the revival so it is not re-derived).
## Context

View File

@@ -2,7 +2,19 @@
## Status
Proposed
**Proposed — implementation deferred per [ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md).**
This ADR's decision is correct and is not superseded. It revives unchanged
when WebTransport revives. ADR-044 defers `h3`/WebTransport as a scope
decision (the browser bidirectional path uses WebSocket for v1; the
ALPN-stream-proxy is the speculative use case whose concrete need is the
reversal trigger). The proxy is the primary WebTransport-specific feature —
it requires WebTransport's stream model and does not transfer to WebSocket.
When a real deployment needs a browser running a WASM SSH/SFTP/git client to
reach a non-call ALPN, this ADR is un-parked and implemented as written.
The `webtransport.md` spec is kept intact and marked `deferred` so the
revival is unblocking already-written design, not re-deriving it.
## Context

View File

@@ -214,11 +214,14 @@ require it for the common case.
`/schema` at build time.
4. **`subscribe` (SSE) is the streaming projection for the gateway.**
Over `h2`/`http/1.1`, subscriptions are SSE. Over WebTransport
(`h3`), subscriptions project onto WebTransport streams directly
(ADR-038) — the gateway's `/subscribe` is the `h2`/`http/1.1` path;
the WebTransport path is the native call-protocol session
(`webtransport.md`).
Over `h2`/`http/1.1`, subscriptions are SSE. Over WebSocket (the v1
browser bidirectional path, ADR-044), subscriptions project onto the
WS connection directly as binary messages — the gateway's `/subscribe`
is the `h2`/`http/1.1` SSE path; the WebSocket path is the native
call-protocol session (`http-server.md` §"WebSocket browser path").
WebTransport (`h3`, deferred per ADR-044) would project onto
WebTransport streams; the deferred design is at
`webtransport.md`.
## References
@@ -232,9 +235,11 @@ require it for the common case.
- [ADR-036](036-http-to-call-operation-mapping.md) — the SSE projection
for subscriptions over `h2`/`http/1.1` (the gateway's `/subscribe`
endpoint uses the same SSE framing)
- [ADR-038](038-http3-and-webtransport-as-first-class.md) — the
WebTransport streaming path (the gateway's `/subscribe` is the
`h2`/`http/1.1` path; WebTransport is native)
- [ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md) —
WebSocket is the v1 browser bidirectional path; `h3`/WebTransport
deferred (the gateway's `/subscribe` is the `h2`/`http/1.1` SSE path;
the WS path is the native call-protocol session). ADR-038 is
superseded by ADR-044.
- [ADR-041](041-mcp-tool-gateway-pattern.md) — the sibling gateway
pattern for `to_mcp` (4 tools; `subscribe` excluded because MCP tool
calls are request/response)

View File

@@ -2,7 +2,28 @@
## Status
Proposed
**Proposed — implementation deferred per [ADR-044](044-defer-webtransport-browsers-use-websocket.md).**
This ADR's decision is correct and is not superseded. It revives unchanged
when WebTransport revives, **with two transfers to WebSocket that apply
during the deferment**:
- **§2 (call-protocol bidirectionality) transfers to WebSocket unchanged.**
WebSocket is full-duplex; the call protocol's bidirectionality applies over
a WS connection exactly as §2 describes for WebTransport. The browser case
where the client registers no ops remains a use-case scoping, not an
architectural limitation.
- **§3 (the no-`PeerId` connection-local overlay) transfers to WebSocket
unchanged.** A browser over WSS has no `PeerId` on the hub's side for the
same reasons it has none over WebTransport (ADR-044 §5); the
connection-local Layer 2 overlay applies. The pattern is transport-agnostic.
What does **not** transfer to WebSocket is §4 (the non-call-ALPN substrate
mechanism / the ALPN-stream-proxy, ADR-040) and §5's WebTransport-specific
framing. Those require WebTransport's stream model and revive with it.
ADR-044 §3 states the transfer explicitly; ADR-044 §5 states the
"browser is not a peer" rationale (addressability vs. bidirectionality)
that this ADR's §3 relies on but does not argue.
## Context

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
# ADR-044: Defer h3/WebTransport; Browsers Use WebSocket
## Status
Accepted (supersedes ADR-038; parks ADR-040, ADR-043)
## Context
ADR-038 brought `h3`/WebTransport into scope as a first-class HTTP transport,
framed against the "two-way door as deferral" anti-pattern (ADR-009 §"What
this framework is NOT"). ADR-040 (the ALPN-stream-proxy) and ADR-043 (the
bidirectional-substrate reframing) extended it. Three ADRs, one crate-spanning
spec (`webtransport.md`), and a body of design work.
Working through the implementation path surfaced a different concern than the
one ADR-038 was written to correct. ADR-038 correctly rejected *deferral-
as-hedging*; the present decision is *deferral-as-scoping*, which ADR-009
explicitly permits (a decision that "genuinely doesn't need to be made yet
because the use case isn't concrete" — scope management, not door-type
classification). The two must not be
confused. Three concrete findings drove the scope re-evaluation:
### Finding 1 — the browser bidirectional path doesn't require WebTransport
The load-bearing use case for `h3`/WebTransport in v1 is **a browser reaching
the call protocol bidirectionally**. ADR-043 §2 establishes that the call
protocol's bidirectionality applies unchanged over any bidirectional stream —
the `Dispatcher` is stream-agnostic (ADR-012). That property is not unique to
WebTransport streams. **WebSocket is a full-duplex, long-lived connection over
which either side can send framed messages**, and the call protocol's
`EventEnvelope` framing fits a WebSocket binary message boundary cleanly (an
`EventEnvelope` is a self-delimited JSON object; one frame = one WS binary
message). The `call.requested`/`call.responded`/`call.completed`/`call.aborted`
exchange works over WebSocket with no protocol change — the same `Dispatcher`,
the same `PendingRequestMap`, the same correlation by request ID.
What WebTransport gives *over* WebSocket — native multiplexed bidirectional
streams, datagrams, the "carry any ALPN as a stream" substrate framing
(ADR-043) — is genuinely better engineering, but none of it is *required* for
the call protocol from a browser. The call protocol multiplexes multiple calls
over a single connection by request ID (ADR-012); it does not need
WebTransport's per-stream multiplexing. The substrate/proxy framing (ADR-040,
ADR-043) is the thing that *does* benefit from WebTransport's stream model —
and that use case is the speculative one (see Finding 3).
### Finding 2 — WebTransport is a draft standard on an experimental dependency stack
WebTransport over HTTP/3 is still an IETF draft (`draft-ietf-webtrans-http3`,
at `-07` at time of writing), not an RFC. The Rust implementation landscape is
correspondingly immature:
- `wtransport` (the reference read during research) is a complete
pure-Rust implementation, but its own README states it "is not considered
completely production-ready" and "may undergo changes as the WebTransport
specification evolves."
- The hyperium stack (`h3` + `h3-quinn` + `h3-webtransport` + `h3-datagram`)
fits the axum/hyper ecosystem more naturally (h3 produces `http::Request`
types that axum consumes directly, which is load-bearing for the spec's
"HTTP/3 requests go through the same axum `Router`" commitment), but h3's
own README says it is "still very experimental... API could change."
- A research spike would be needed to verify the hyperium stack's
server-side WebTransport API before committing to it — the axum-bridge
feasibility is the load-bearing claim and is not yet confirmed against
actual crate APIs, only against READMEs and design philosophy.
Either choice puts a draft-standard protocol and an experimental Rust
dependency on the security surface of `alknet-http`'s first release. The `h3`
feature gate (ADR-038) isolates the risk for non-browser-facing deployments,
but a browser-facing hub must enable it — so the risk is borne precisely by
the deployment shape that motivates having a browser path at all.
### Finding 3 — the ALPN-stream-proxy is speculative; the call protocol is not
ADR-040 (the ALPN-stream-proxy — a browser with a WASM parser for SSH/SFTP/git
reaching any ALPN handler via WebTransport) is the genuinely compelling
WebTransport use case. It is also the one that is *not* required for v1:
- The call protocol from a browser works over WebSocket (Finding 1).
- The downstream crates unlocked by completing `alknet-http` (the SSH, git,
SFTP crates) do not require WebTransport or the proxy. They expose their
ALPNs natively over QUIC; the proxy is a *browser reachability* feature
for those ALPNs, not a prerequisite for the ALPNs to exist.
- The WASM parsers (the browser-side SSH/SFTP/git clients) are themselves
downstream artifacts not yet built. The proxy is only useful once a parser
exists to consume it.
The proxy is "useful, and cheap-on-top *if* WebTransport already exists" —
but WebTransport does not yet exist, and building it speculatively to enable
a proxy whose consumers do not yet exist is the scope inversion.
### The iroh precedent
iroh's own relay (`iroh-relay`, the DERP-equivalent that provides NAT traversal
fallback) chose **WebSocket (WSS)**, not WebTransport, for its fallback path.
This is a strong signal from a project whose entire design center is QUIC and
P2P connectivity: when the question was "what does a browser need to reach our
protocol bidirectionally," their answer was WSS, not WebTransport. Aligning
with that precedent is not cutting against competent practice — it is
matching it.
## Decision
### 1. Defer `h3`/WebTransport. Browsers reach the call protocol over WebSocket.
The `h3` ALPN, the `h3` feature gate, and the WebTransport dependency stack
are **deferred** — not implemented in the initial `alknet-http` release. A
browser connecting to a hub authenticates by bearer token and upgrades an
HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/2 request to WebSocket. The resulting full-duplex WS
connection carries call-protocol `EventEnvelope` frames as binary WebSocket
messages. The browser is a bidirectional call-protocol client over this
connection, using the same `Dispatcher` and `PendingRequestMap` as the
`alknet/call` QUIC path (ADR-012 — stream-agnostic correlation; a WS message
stream is just another `BiStream`-satisfying transport, extending ADR-012's
stream-agnostic claim from QUIC bidirectional streams to any framed
full-duplex byte channel).
This is a **scope** decision, not a hedging deferral (ADR-009 §"What this
framework is NOT"). The reversal trigger is concrete: **a real deployment that
needs the ALPN-stream-proxy (a browser running a WASM SSH/SFTP/git client to
reach a non-call ALPN)**. When that use case arrives, ADR-038 / ADR-040 /
ADR-043 revive as the design — they are not wrong, they are not-now. No
"v1/later/when-it-arrives" hedging language attaches; the condition is stated
as a concrete trigger.
### 2. ADR-038 is superseded by this ADR.
ADR-038's core decision — that `h3` is in scope, not deferred — is reversed
by this ADR. ADR-038's *correction* of the "two-way-door-as-deferral"
anti-pattern stands as a document (the anti-pattern is real); its specific
decision (h3 in scope now) is superseded. ADR-038 is marked Superseded.
### 3. ADR-040 and ADR-043 are parked, not superseded.
ADR-040 (the ALPN-stream-proxy) and ADR-043 (the bidirectional-substrate
reframing) are **not superseded** — their decisions are correct, and they
revive unchanged when WebTransport revives. They are marked Proposed with an
amendment noting implementation is deferred per this ADR. Two specific
transfers apply during the deferment:
- **ADR-043 §2 (call-protocol bidirectionality over WebTransport) transfers
to WebSocket unchanged.** WebSocket is full-duplex; the call protocol's
bidirectionality applies over a WS connection exactly as ADR-043 §2
describes for WebTransport. The browser case where the client registers
no ops remains a use-case scoping, not an architectural limitation.
- **ADR-043 §3 (the no-`PeerId` connection-local overlay) transfers to
WebSocket unchanged.** A browser over WSS has no `PeerId` on the hub's
side for the same reasons it has none over WebTransport (see §5 below);
the connection-local Layer 2 overlay applies. The pattern is
transport-agnostic.
What does *not* transfer to WebSocket is ADR-040 (the ALPN-stream-proxy) and
ADR-043 §4 (the non-call-ALPN substrate mechanism). Those require
WebTransport's stream model and revive with it. SSH/SFTP/git-over-WSS-from-a-
browser is technically possible (multiplex logical streams over one WS frame
stream) but is not specified here — it is the same speculative use case that
motivates deferring WebTransport, and it is not needed for v1.
### 4. WebSocket is the browser bidirectional path; HTTP/1.1+HTTP/2 remain the one-directional projection.
`alknet-http`'s browser-reachable surface becomes:
| Transport | Direction | Use case |
|-----------|-----------|----------|
| `http/1.1`, `h2` | one-directional (client→server) | HTTP clients (curl, axios, `fetch` for request/response); SSE for subscription streaming (ADR-036) |
| WebSocket (over `http/1.1` or `h2` upgrade) | **bidirectional** | Browser call-protocol clients; the path that restores the call protocol's bidirectionality for browsers |
WebSocket is the surface that **restores the call protocol's bidirectionality
for browsers** (the role ADR-043 §5 assigned to WebTransport). The
one-directional projection that ADR-043 §5 names for HTTP/1.1+HTTP/2 stands
unchanged.
### 5. Browsers over WebSocket are not alknet peers — the rationale, stated.
ADR-034 §4 established that a browser over WebTransport is not an alknet peer
(no `PeerId`, no `PeerCompositeEnv` entry). The same applies to a browser over
WebSocket, and the rationale — which ADR-034 §4 states as a closure without
the supporting argument — is worth making explicit because it is the
load-bearing distinction:
**"Peer" in alknet means an addressable node in the call-protocol peer graph
— a stable `PeerId`, reachable via `PeerRef::Specific`, whose ops land in
`PeerCompositeEnv`, whose identity is stable across reconnects.** It does
*not* mean "any endpoint that exchanges calls during a live session." A
browser is the second thing but not the first, on three concrete grounds:
1. **No stable cryptographic identity of its own.** A `PeerEntry` is anchored
to fingerprints (Ed25519, X.509) that *the peer* presents and the local
node pins. A browser presents a bearer token the *hub* issued; the
"identity" is the hub's bookkeeping for that token, not something the
browser owns or that could be pinned by another node. There is nothing
to put in `PeerEntry.fingerprints`.
2. **Ephemeral.** Close the tab → connection dies → the connection-local
Layer 2 overlay (ADR-043 §3 / ADR-034 §2) dies with it. A `PeerEntry`
keyed to a browser would be a permanently-dead entry within seconds.
`PeerRef::Specific("browser-X")` from another node would route to
nothing.
3. **Not addressable from other nodes.** `PeerRef::Specific` resolves through
`PeerEntry``PeerId`. Another alknet node has no way to reach "the
browser currently connected to hub-A"; the hub holds that connection as a
live `CallConnection` handle, not as a peer-graph entry. The
connection-local overlay is precisely the mechanism that gives the
browser bidirectional-call capability *without* peer-graph membership.
This is the explicit closure of the "browser as peer" path, on both the
inbound (this section) and outbound (ADR-034 §2) sides. The browser is a
**bidirectional call target during a live session**, not a **peer-graph
member**. The connection-local Layer 2 overlay (ADR-024, ADR-043 §3) is what
makes the former possible without requiring the latter.
This rationale applies transport-agnostically — to WebSocket, to WebTransport
when it revives, and to any future browser transport. ADR-034 §4 is amended
by reference to this section.
## Consequences
**Positive:**
- `alknet-http`'s first release does not carry a draft-standard protocol or
an experimental dependency stack on its security surface. The browser path
uses WebSocket, a mature, well-understood, RFC 6455 protocol with first-
class axum support (`axum::extract::ws`).
- The axum-bridge research spike for h3/WebTransport is not on the critical
path. WebSocket upgrade over HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/2 is standard axum territory.
- The downstream crates that `alknet-http` unblocks (SSH, git, SFTP) are not
blocked on WebTransport or the proxy. They expose their ALPNs natively over
QUIC; browser reachability for them is a future WebTransport feature.
- Forward momentum is preserved: the `h3` handler, the feature gate, the
`wtransport`/hyperium decision, and the ALPN-stream-proxy are all real
design work that is already done (ADR-038, ADR-040, ADR-043,
`webtransport.md`). Reviving them is unblocking already-written specs, not
designing from scratch.
**Negative:**
- ADR-038, ADR-040, and ADR-043 are not implemented in the initial release.
Their design work is preserved (the ADRs and `webtransport.md` stay in the
record), but a reader must cross-reference this ADR to know they are
parked. The `webtransport.md` spec is marked `deferred` with a header note.
- The ALPN-stream-proxy (ADR-040) is not available in v1. A browser cannot
reach SSH/SFTP/git ALPNs in the initial release — it can reach the call
protocol over WebSocket, but not the non-call ALPNs. This is the
speculative use case whose deferral this ADR commits; the reversal trigger
is a real deployment needing it.
- WebSocket is a single stream; it lacks WebTransport's native multi-stream
multiplexing. For the call protocol this is fine (correlation is by request
ID, not by stream — ADR-012), but it means a future migration to
WebTransport would be a genuine upgrade, not a no-op. The migration path
is the spec that already exists (`webtransport.md`).
- ADR-043's "WebTransport restores bidirectionality" framing (§5) becomes
"WebSocket restores bidirectionality" for v1. The framing transfer is clean
(§3 above), but the prose in `http-server.md` and the ADRs must reflect it.
## Reversal
This decision reverses when a concrete deployment needs the ALPN-stream-proxy
— i.e., a real use case of a browser running a WASM SSH/SFTP/git client to
reach a non-call ALPN over WebTransport. At that point:
1. The research spike deferred here (verify the hyperium stack's server-side
WebTransport API and the axum-bridge feasibility — see §"Research note"
in `webtransport.md`) is run.
2. ADR-038 / ADR-040 / ADR-043 are un-parked and implemented as written,
with the `webtransport.md` spec as the design.
3. The WebSocket browser path (this ADR's §4) is not removed — it remains as
the simpler browser path for deployments that don't need WebTransport's
stream model. The two coexist.
The reversal is a one-way door at the *crate surface* (the `h3` feature gate
becomes part of the published interface) but a two-way door at the
*architecture* (the `webtransport.md` design already exists; reviving it is
implementation work, not redesign). The `webtransport.md` spec is kept intact
and marked `deferred` so the revival is unblocking, not re-deriving.
## Research note (for revival)
A note for the revival: `wtransport` (the reference implementation read during
initial research) is *probably not* the right dependency choice, despite
being a complete and readable implementation. The load-bearing integration
concern is that `alknet-http`'s `h3` handler must route HTTP/3 requests
through the same axum `Router` as `h2`/`http/1.1` (ADR-036), and `wtransport`
owns its own HTTP serving path — bridging its request type into the
`http::Request` axum consumes is cross-ecosystem adapter work. The hyperium
stack (`h3` + `h3-quinn` + `h3-webtransport`) operates at the stream level
and produces `http::Request` types natively, which is a better fit for the
axum integration — but its server-side WebTransport API needs verification
before commitment. This research is **not** run now (WebTransport is
deferred); it is recorded here so the revival does not re-derive the question
from scratch. See `webtransport.md` §"Research note" for the cross-reference.
## Assumptions
1. **The call protocol's `EventEnvelope` framing fits a WebSocket binary
message boundary cleanly.** An `EventEnvelope` is a self-delimited JSON
object; one envelope per WS binary message. No streaming deserializer
across message boundaries is needed. This is verified by implementation
when the WS browser path is built, not by a separate research spike — the
call protocol spec (`call-protocol.md`) and the EventEnvelope shape
already make this property clear, and WebSocket binary messages are a
standard byte-framed transport.
2. **WebSocket upgrade over HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/2 is supported by the axum/
hyper stack natively.** `axum::extract::ws` provides the upgrade handler;
the underlying connection is the same hyper HTTP connection the `h2`/
`http/1.1` handler already drives. No new framing library is needed.
3. **A browser over WebSocket has the same peer-model properties as a browser
over WebTransport.** No `PeerId`, no `PeerCompositeEnv` entry, connection-
local Layer 2 overlay (ADR-043 §3, ADR-034 §2). The rationale in §5 is
transport-agnostic and applies identically to WSS.
4. **The downstream crates (SSH, git, SFTP) do not require WebTransport or
the ALPN-stream-proxy to exist.** They expose their ALPNs natively over
QUIC; the proxy is a browser-reachability feature, not a prerequisite for
the ALPNs themselves. Browser reachability for non-call ALPNs is the
speculative use case whose deferral this ADR commits.
## References
- [ADR-009](009-one-way-door-decision-framework.md) §"What this framework is
NOT" — the anti-pattern ADR-038 was written to correct; this ADR relies on
ADR-009's explicit distinction between deferral-as-hedging (rejected) and
deferral-as-scoping (permitted: a decision that "genuinely doesn't need to
be made yet because the use case isn't concrete" — scope management, not
door-type classification)
- [ADR-038](038-http3-and-webtransport-as-first-class.md) — **superseded by
this ADR.** Its correction of the two-way-door-as-deferral anti-pattern
stands; its specific decision (h3 in scope now) is reversed.
- [ADR-040](040-webtransport-alpn-stream-proxy.md) — **parked, not
superseded.** Revives unchanged when WebTransport revives. The proxy is
the speculative use case whose deferral is this ADR's reversal trigger.
- [ADR-043](043-webtransport-bidirectional-alpn-substrate.md) — **parked, not
superseded.** §2 (bidirectionality) and §3 (no-`PeerId` overlay) transfer
to WebSocket unchanged; §4 (non-call-ALPN substrate) and §5's
WebTransport-specific framing revive with WebTransport.
- [ADR-034](034-outgoing-only-x509-and-three-peer-roles.md) §4 — browsers are
not alknet peers; this ADR's §5 states the rationale (addressability vs.
bidirectionality) that ADR-034 §4 closes without arguing. ADR-034 §4 is
amended by reference to this ADR's §5.
- [ADR-012](012-call-protocol-stream-model.md) — stream-agnostic correlation;
a WebSocket message stream is another `BiStream`-satisfying transport. The
call protocol multiplexes by request ID, not by stream.
- [ADR-036](036-http-to-call-operation-mapping.md) — the HTTP-to-call
mapping; the WebSocket browser path layers on top of the same axum
`Router` and `OperationRegistry::invoke()` dispatch.
- `crates/http/webtransport.md` — the deferred spec; marked `deferred` with
a header note pointing here. Kept intact for revival.
- `crates/http/http-server.md` — gains a "WebSocket browser path" section
(the v1 browser bidirectional path) and the "browser is not a peer"
rationale (this ADR's §5, transported to the spec that now carries the
browser path).