Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC lacks on-path exposure of packet loss (#3189)

Igor Lubashev <> Wed, 06 November 2019 04:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6078B12006F for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:10:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 GU8sxvNaoyRU for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E2F120C0F for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19892C323B for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:10:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573013445; bh=UVBXgp+wgdtBF5GjgX+liv0dDH1ZhfnyuVeiiNN4Qao=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=cxrYlZcIj7dfcfkztOaSw7j1Z4HybY41W2Y9MpkaczklrsMMQL7d5XE+XPYjEszYq 9D2jLIF8pYw5NO8k17W2VD6BdG36jMTdk0EeE34pEeYMDUVLESFk6RdcQMGbHaocrD vBWnwrG3QC5kUJhU/S9W2zEtc2rVu/XWxFsuZf1s=
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 20:10:45 -0800
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3189/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC lacks on-path exposure of packet loss (#3189)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc247c5c1ba0_49743fc2eb6cd96c35012d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 04:10:49 -0000

@mnot, @larseggert I am sure this is not an easy call, and it is late in the process. While this is not a straightforward "draft has an interop [between QUIC implementations] problem" it is a potential "draft has an interop with Internet ops problem" issue. This could be a stretch of what interoperability 
impact means, or not; please use your best Hat of Wisdom here.

P.S. In the IETF105 timeframe, while the draft I was presenting was, indeed, not targeting QUIC WG specifically, I did ask for the consideration of the topic by QUIC WG: "if the WG is interested, we are happy to have a quick QUIC-specific presentation on this". But you are correct that I could had been much more forceful in the request. In any case, we [got a rejection]( (and, as you said, we later [presented this in other WGs and held a side meeting](

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