Differences between iQUIC and gQUIC

"Feltgen, Eric" <eric.feltgen@rwth-aachen.de> Mon, 18 October 2021 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <eric.feltgen@rwth-aachen.de>
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 E92FB3A074B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NuoHdoDVn76x for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out-2.itc.rwth-aachen.de (mail-out-2.itc.rwth-aachen.de [IPv6:2a00:8a60:1:e501::5:47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 003FE3A0484 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
IronPort-SDR: t0wjsdI+jqdzhNB0rInH/78yA+Pdknrizvs3PeQt4u1BQyynBQrFqzqUxIZjbrwxdMZ/TGmkrj MkGBREc5Z2tw==
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2BdCQBpx21h/5gagoZagQmBW4EfMCOCBZQcnlyBaAsBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEIAT8CBAEBh08CJTkFDQECBAEBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBBgEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QUEgSSFLzoMh1QBDHQnBBuEaFI3Aa10gTOBAYRphQ+BOoEThgiCeYQpgWZDg?= =?us-ascii?q?RWHcyCGFwSNd4IdnzeBaYsnknADBAOCBYEsBZ5dLxSVaYNsjUSWCx+lUQIEA?= =?us-ascii?q?gQFAhaBeVyBIHGDOVAXAg+NeAGOd0NpAgYLAQEDCYVqjTYBAQ?=
IronPort-Data: A9a23:KemYhqhzqoiFQRmHxdWYXtzPX1616hIKZh0ujC45NGQN5FlHY01je htvDD3SO/7ZY2uhKtxzYdngoRkHvZLUxtRlGVNqqHwxHn5jpJueD7x1DKtR0wC6c5efFhI3t 63yTvGacajYm1eF/k/F3oAMLhCQ7InQLlbGILes1htZGEk0FU/NtTo5w7Rg29Yx0YDja++wk YqaT/P3aQfNNwFcbzp8B5Kr8HuDa9yr5Vv0FnRnDRx6lAe2e0s9VfrzFontR5fMebS4K8bhL wr15OzjojmJr09F5uSNyd4XemVSKlLb0JPnZnB+A8BOiTAazsA+PzpS2Pc0MS9qZzu1c99Z2 ZZS65qPYz0SLJbOqd87CD15ESxdBPgTkFPHCSDXXc271VLac3b8hu43SUhwJ5IE+qN+DSdC+ JT0KhhUNUzF3rnuhujlDLAx3KzPL+GyVG8bknx6zDqfA/siXZ/ORY3Q+sNYmT45jcBDG7DSa qL1bBI2Mk6YO0wUYAt/5JQWtteq2GHUayFjh0Owt5gH8UXcnCFs3+24WDbSUpnQLSlPpW6Bu 2PN12X0Hh9cM8aQoQdp6Vq2mfPPkDO+Q9tXHfui6eJqxVSfgGAeYPELaWaGTTCCohbWc7pix 4Y8o0LCcYBaGJSXc+TA
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:exPmNKypwMWGlsPS6fONKrPw8L1zdoMgy1knxilNoH1uA7elfq WV98jzuiWbtN98YhwdcJO7Sc29qArnlKKduLNwAV7AZniFhILLFvAb0WKK+VSJcREWkNQtsJ uIGJIQNDSfNzRHZInBkW6F+nsbsb+62bHtr933i11qSRhua6lm5Qs8MACGCUd7LTM2ZqbRUK Dsn/Z6mw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,382,1624312800"; d="scan'208,217";a="162009324"
Received: from rwthex-s1-a.rwth-ad.de ([134.130.26.152]) by mail-in-2.itc.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2021 21:18:15 +0200
Received: from rwthex-w1-b.rwth-ad.de (2a00:8a60:1:e500::26:157) by rwthex-s1-a.rwth-ad.de (2a00:8a60:1:e500::26:152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.922.13; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 21:18:15 +0200
Received: from rwthex-w1-b.rwth-ad.de ([fe80::e523:7c30:fb2a:68e4]) by rwthex-w1-b.rwth-ad.de ([fe80::e523:7c30:fb2a:68e4%8]) with mapi id 15.02.0922.013; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 21:18:15 +0200
From: "Feltgen, Eric" <eric.feltgen@rwth-aachen.de>
To: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Differences between iQUIC and gQUIC
Thread-Topic: Differences between iQUIC and gQUIC
Thread-Index: AQHXxFTEv8Pg7b6HNU+XUvBXSwUFYQ==
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:18:14 +0000
Message-ID: <b12dde7c79c04b6cbabbeff6d11fac4e@rwth-aachen.de>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2a00:8a60:c010:1::1:104e]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_b12dde7c79c04b6cbabbeff6d11fac4erwthaachende_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/9gOGRsdHpgkibpJRkSdN-LbkMkI>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:42:48 -0700
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:20:07 -0000

Dear QUIC working group,

I am a CS student at RWTH Aachen University currently researching papers on the performance of QUIC in the context of a seminar. In the past years, there have been many papers on this topic testing many different versions of Google's QUIC. Over the years, many changes have been made to the protocol and the implementation at Google.

In order to understand which results are comparable to the standardized version of QUIC (RFC 9000), it would be helpful to which changes have been made in the last years of the Google version and how the last QUIC versions by Google compare to the QUIC standard. In my research so far, I found out that forward error correction has been removed from the Google version a couple of years ago. So my question is whether there are any breaking changes that have been made in the development of the IETF standard which could result in different behaviour.

Thank you in advance for any response! It would help a lot to understand the development stop of the QUIC standard within the last years.

Best regards,

Eric Feltgen