RE: The first octet

"Roni Even (A)" <> Wed, 08 August 2018 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9AA12F295 for <>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xH1F64XKs0Ip for <>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 138C61252B7 for <>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E1A64CD3E9B10 for <>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 14:42:06 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 14:42:08 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 21:42:01 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <>
To: Ian Swett <>, "" <>
CC: IETF QUIC WG <>, Martin Thomson <>, Kazuho Oku <>
Subject: RE: The first octet
Thread-Topic: The first octet
Thread-Index: AQHULxv+decNTZUJlk6OslajB0gFnKS12iCw
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 13:42:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD8BB1D0DGGEMM506MBXchina_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 13:42:14 -0000


If  in the future there will be consensus that an extra byte is needed it is not related to the first octet as an invariant.  It does not conflict with the invariant draft since it will be version dependent, it only means that it will have to be after the invariants parts of the short header.


From: QUIC [] On Behalf Of Ian Swett
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 4:30 PM
Cc: IETF QUIC WG; Martin Thomson; Kazuho Oku
Subject: Re: The first octet

I'm having a hard time understanding why you'd need 7 bits to measure packet loss(1 seems sufficient in most cases), can you send a link to the spin + VEC and 7 bit proposals you mentioned?

I'll also note I think the chances the WG will agree to 7 bits is extremely close to 0, but I'm curious why you'd even want them.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:22 AM <<>> wrote:
On 08/08/18 12:05, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I know you discussed taking more bits and even bytes, but the case
> hasn't been made in this working group to my knowledge.  I certainly
> don't think that's justified; it improved fidelity of measurements,
> but the spin bit appears to be pretty good at that without the extra
> overheads.

Fidelity is indeed the criterion to decide 1 (spin bit) vs 3 (spin bit + VEC)
for RTT measurements, right.

However, measurements also include packet loss, which is typically more
widespread than delay in big pipes (which don't have enough RAM to keep a packet
for too long at line rate). And spin+VEC do not address packet loss at all,
hence our 7-bit spin counter proposal shown in London.

I admit that 7 is hefty if you're starting from Christian's songle spin bit ;

  - I assume nobody will emit any doubt about the criticality of
non-delay-related (big pipe) loss location. Unless everybody here has perfect
networks and ideal reporting, that is.

  - Stick the spin bit on top of these 7, make that an extra easurement byte and
you've got your three spare bits again in the first byte.


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.