Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PING interface for upper layer? (#3567)
David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 April 2020 00:10 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105EB3A1A52 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yYx3pViI8p6M for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 877E63A1A57 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:10:43 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1586391043; bh=RteJLbZrCcrz9bubom/Z0Fvy91Z4NDL+QElltfXf9DM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=D8vsm8Bt8pswpbpvfk4o1L9g0gzIR7FGxsdtMoK003IKeGxBRP+GKizljKDmPfIkI jJByFU0rqagPzRFQV7rn7/ZRBV4txzwlHvBNQa1SFVoh0E8QgRhEtq3nRDo1nLnMsM r33cqw3bDfWwA0PV792F+kkNFj8KYNbY5g7TwhD4=
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5UTDGI5HOP7NNRMJF4TJEQHEVBNHHCHCTWCE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3567/611256815@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3567@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3567@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PING interface for upper layer? (#3567)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8e680365e66_7ae23fef1cecd95c108215"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/TYjtbDR-9EjRiyRLbpw6fgqASvs>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:10:52 -0000
[HTTP/2 PING frames](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-6.7) exist to measure the round-trip delay, they're not specific to application-layer delay. QUIC blurs the layers in such a way that I don't think there is an actual difference between application-layer delay and network-layer delay. (Not that the OSI model ever made sense, but that's another conversation...) The combination of QUIC PING and ACK frames allow you to calculate the round-trip delay in a way that's even more accurate because the [ACK frame](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-27#section-19.3) carries an `ACK Delay` field that allows you to compute on-device delay. Could you clarify what exactly it is that QUIC does not allow to measure today? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3567#issuecomment-611256815
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PING in… stormlin
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PIN… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PIN… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PIN… stormlin
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PIN… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PIN… stormlin
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PIN… stormlin