Re: Interests of Using QUIC for 3GPP 5G Core Control Plane

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 23 August 2017 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D44132B8C for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 32vxKQsvId1H for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1090D132AD6 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id p141so2300557iop.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2FdxV4+mIyx31tXk2yLqAUL7xd68uC3d4+L9gbMkxLc=; b=cE9XHXAjDBpn+tWPro7wQIuCFDVr/baD3ZkNT9aPLW/UlbyWbu36Pi+dWL6K37Jxz+ wCnaUWq4Qor+9kFgHwMO1a3hez7/LUfJTMqhVfRHawar25Sbu6heY7DX8Q0Nw9rzM2Ry i2QO9jQvImJmdxAsnW5UtSeCz402a6rwUbgw4/vpWT2YfCpZNBhHNxeTtShe86piVOT+ rmFnJ+W0OXaSgK0jEU5YtjQ4vOO0q9rAvBSmBFuuC8Wlaq5dmBj9Y2O3wXBP5HS5aUhV 2/hPSy1a4DdvHhCqTyEQMkHPc4y53s20fRJg/9+OWSHwmUReyLbiwKZlxPFCS/rb4VG9 tNZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2FdxV4+mIyx31tXk2yLqAUL7xd68uC3d4+L9gbMkxLc=; b=dZR8tUm+uZGLBFaJj3+/cBo3ppyOfmowQz//7AEVTdzopFUBQrCoyc9VD/ZZzyXbFH CwnmQqUdcBVqIj0+aAqrsjUb5IKtayTdf4c/I7yqdzU+bDE1r/NJ8jVnNTxj9iu5zOML dsvCEUjMJLmLJCarBT+hsV0jiEgoGtBlw/sjP8GxVOunNxbLzJwy+K2ZoP4z4TW+ZcKF eCqWzOtuk1yPHNR2GGAL9PX5nk7XLwsinrfiJmLowo0AJ2V6NvuUzrNv2ErDW1Frf1ff MOrRPp2gEviCrV8ytMYmDBqqERSw2er26ysmy/afs2ooNMV6y6tX5knwknI7FyDG24ZP qqEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jgnDwP1Q4p7MfrbH9IYf/T0j4fb949xyNT2RqQU7VqVjbCDdDU sv86yYcGCaD5UUgqc9VsgzR0zCaV9Q==
X-Received: by 10.107.180.72 with SMTP id d69mr529348iof.291.1503447212340; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.133.37 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR21MB01412B8BF6A36DC140AA7EF187840@MWHPR21MB0141.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HK2PR06MB09134BAD122CA79EA6E1CF9987AF0@HK2PR06MB0913.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR21MB01412B8BF6A36DC140AA7EF187840@MWHPR21MB0141.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:13:31 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUT53ZzGM9HU71n6CZAZSaxEPOPV-9w5JcYkGWwMBJ1Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Interests of Using QUIC for 3GPP 5G Core Control Plane
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: GENG Liang <liang.geng@hotmail.com>, quic <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/7nJjs7Gl_Y9p61S6SJGvniMPGdQ>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:13:35 -0000

I agree with Mike, it seems like your timelines are too tight for a
requirement on *QUIC*.

But that's probably the wrong way to look at this.  The question you
should instead ask is whether HTTP can meet your requirements.  Based
on the slides, it would appear that HTTP with HTTP/2 and TLS 1.3 would
meet those requirements.

That leaves the option to use QUIC open when QUIC is ready.  We have
what we believe is an adequate story for seamlessly introducing QUIC
into a system that uses HTTP.

Creating dependencies on HTTP generically and maybe HTTP/2 and TLS 1.3
would be a reasonable plan in my view.

On 23 August 2017 at 09:51, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi, Liang –
>
>
>
> I wanted to make sure we got back to you on this, since this didn’t make it
> onto the IETF 99 agenda and I didn’t see any subsequent list discussion.
>
>
>
> The answer to the question you ask in your slides is definitely “no”:  the
> QUIC transport will not be sent to the IESG by Q4 of 2017.  The QUIC WG was
> chartered in October 2016 and our chartered milestones say that we hope to
> finish the transport, TLS, and congestion control docs by March of 2018.
> That already seems somewhat improbable to me.  (Chairs and fellow editors,
> speak up if you disagree.)
>
>
>
> This is a really interesting proposal and I’d love to see it move forward.
> You say that it would need to be “a stable WG document,” which seems
> slightly contradictory – a WG document is inherently still changing.  If
> what you need is the fact that those features are present and not going to
> be removed, we’re already there.  If what you need is that the wire format
> is locked, I don’t think that’s likely.
>
>
>
> But if 5G slips, or just has feature requirements to relay to us so that it
> could leverage QUIC in future work, I’m interested in seeing what those
> requirements would be.
>
>
>
> From: QUIC [mailto:quic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of GENG Liang
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:29 PM
> To: quic <quic@ietf.org>
> Subject: Interests of Using QUIC for 3GPP 5G Core Control Plane
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> We are proposing and promoting the use of QUIC for 3GPP SBA control plane.
> This results from various advantages of QUIC protocol, which align with the
> 3GPP requirements:
>
>
>
> -Performance advantages including 0-RTT and Multiplexing
>
> -Reliability advantages including ACK mechanism over UDP and etc.
>
>
>
> We put together a set of sides to introduce the timeline of 3GPP work and
> what we think are important to be considered if QUIC could be potentially
> adopted.
>
>
>
> Although I fully understand that the WG session may be packed in IETF99, we
> would really appreciate if a 5-10 mins could be allocated to us to present
> this interest to all QUIC colleagues.
>
>
>
> Any comments will be extremely welcome.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Liang
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Liang GENG
>
> China Mobile Research Institute