Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PING interface for upper layer? (#3567)

stormlin <> Thu, 09 April 2020 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63EB3A0ADA for <>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.721 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S0hkHa1JWv4o for <>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B7783A0AD8 for <>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 08:53:01 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1586447581; bh=JqBi1+CxWxK3O8hiYSz14ucfvNP38+uBHkMe2/PPflE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WSq/qQRHn1r9vPRl4oyHH+OABIH8TzhxsCy+/ZlOZg6p91xRGADaZv/0hNsUOr4Ab z267B7+yl+q04+pJ2I5qkQEOg8eZuW5SDbfVllQAnNaCLgy2NIPY1ivHJRKEtS/b9l ukeZx3HASxCwSXUfwwdESjHVdXvaDK+Z386oRjRo=
From: stormlin <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3567/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should QUIC provides PING interface for upper layer? (#3567)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8f44dd7fce4_3ac03fa35d2cd964105290"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: K9A2
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 15:53:04 -0000

Actually, I am doing some research on H3 request schedule mechanism using HTTP/3 connection level delay partly. Yet neither the spec of H3 nor QUIC provides an interface to fetch delay from H3 connection or QUIC connection. Workarounds do exists, if I use ICMP PING Frame, or calculate TTFB when I send H3 request as result, or get it directly from QUIC congestion control module. But none of these workarounds fit my purpose on pro-actively retrieving the dealy of H3 connection or QUIC connection. At last, I end up implementing by pro-actively send QUIC PING Frame and wait my peer
acknowledges the QUIC packet contains it.

I found another research doing the similar thing as I do. Their paper is "MP-H2: A Client-only Multipath Solution for HTTP/2". They just use the H2 PING and corresponding ack to get H2-level delay.

This is all I am thinking about.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: