IETF Logo Mail Archive

Composability of extensions (was: Re: Preparing for discussion on what to do about the multipath extension milestone)

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Thu, 01 October 2020 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@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 1D5DF3A1080 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 06:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 fVawzO6RA8c9 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 06:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) (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 3B9683A1042 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 06:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id nw23so7977630ejb.4 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 06:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CXyrf9pTO4H+wYxm6gTV6SOzDVzWGHA8RsL1CdqmRr8=; b=BVf5iJyPFpgh6o1N+Xg59WqtNsqB5Mm/eo1yDc9UU967aNhbiYCsdg/sWSAkSil2D8 jzYh0boPde1DHLyy8BL3I1ssHBh0AGyLVjknC+n9tOxEnXYb9FnUA76W1+etQ3kj7892 53ONWZHj4ThDbnQSOaIxd9h8qUsTIULKv8Oe9ViBAtke5KB6nbYkt0vvAmtVaayLsAbk uNnz6O0rmIrTqfSY0D/vyZMOIDHnraHundY+1NP6iUzRyXWAtA7Oq+LjAOFIBazumh4U xuU43L5GfZwvKZhwWdbg4AQkO34u57coexs/tFhWZ7b6VTBsYNif7lxfVxIFRmb5+PA3 Plww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=CXyrf9pTO4H+wYxm6gTV6SOzDVzWGHA8RsL1CdqmRr8=; b=ETnScw1Th7h2s76PHTLC09wQ9D3qF2jpv99K6sgkoAqShdqFv6N/TpEa/lfCM4qIk7 5w7ruzSSVqo9HRuDd4cH+q+Vu/BOCPYtCqgpoj0K89H2JlJQ1NCfugVYfUErXQhNlddS p/B00riOu5KGNP9LEKYL0U5Zqe2A3HfrOq6sIZDG6lw9jeGUD1NDpzBkysMcR2aajdZt YWtJKsVTcRwxugUwKqEcJw2r8zLreG9vGuLoECXHw76WzfTe6IYDmN5u/4ZQB8ha3lpR QU3RQuXEgvSunXlL2ynvyqLtvJZTm7LEX0EfOCNDcgHkJszGYbyCunm9dauQg8IfBFtk XACQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53013sH2M9gmXheDKqN8tpsLkBBoA0SEfyyOGxVx0FLIoXKJ3pif Pb9YoT1nu+VgdlAux8bfabU4ZFwaq+bCQWLLJbJVeGQ3Vf3ErA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJySPmUDTT7vPWdpF6SNNb/Xd6rC0ys+oTfrZ+QN0R+2GuFFKnZ2LXDxdLYvLyhxuXepKww6wTb2+CaeXopj5j8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2747:: with SMTP id a7mr7849489ejd.301.1601557665405; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 06:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F0A5E38D-4117-4729-BFF8-72D97CAA9908@eggert.org> <CAKKJt-e=+XLZhNWqaG9YSLTRqyQRvDc-dagUSkFwHOByFwZ++Q@mail.gmail.com> <78651438-2fce-ba67-4f44-4228bbc79a75@uclouvain.be> <CADdTf+hOACZ1x=d8SV-aX0f3vc+_fyqTziRqi5gi+nJgppaz8A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gNF=0gwrPt=Mr1P=dF_-wmXfz-OJkavFSDe1qrXFeMa4A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gNF=0gwrPt=Mr1P=dF_-wmXfz-OJkavFSDe1qrXFeMa4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:07:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZF-m5fYxRjCfvQbqgSBv7djDgT3wU+MkBj+-gF4oVc6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Composability of extensions (was: Re: Preparing for discussion on what to do about the multipath extension milestone)
To: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bbdf5d05b09bb38e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/BEZJkxjJdT6JKIIqQropDVxoy2o>
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: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 13:07:56 -0000

Hiya,

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ian Swett <ianswett=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
> The existing draft(draft-deconinck-quic-multipath-05
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deconinck-quic-multipath-05>) adds
> ADD_ADDRESS/REMOVE_ADDRESS frames and modifies the ACK, NEW_CONNECTION_ID,
> and RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames.  It also adds what appears to be a
> debugging frame(UNIFLOWS) and a single transport parameter to indicate
> support and indicate the max number of uniflows.  Having sets of CIDs per
> path seems an unfortunate complication to me, but I haven't thought about
> it enough.  The two new frames and modifications to the ACK frame are
> simple enough.
>
> Is there MORE work QUIC WG would have to do than what's described in the
> draft?  If so, can people outline that work?
>
>
This reminded me of the comment I made on the mailing list in January [1]
about how QUIC extensions would play together. There was some further
discussion on GitHub [2] and in Zurich we decided to do nothing. But we did
note that maybe we need to figure things out when the problem comes up, is
that time now? Does adopting one extension force people into an
uncomfortable position of picking one optimization over another?

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/OlwAHMyK2mAuRCRuCP-Lpyb7ntA/
[2] https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3332

Cheers
Lucas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email