Re: New Version Notification for draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-quic-lossbits-03.txt

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:46 AM Lubashev, Igor <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > From: Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > (chair hat off)
> >
> > the draft points to the CONEX work and says this:
> >
> >    This loss signaling is similar to loss signaling in [RFC7713], except
> >    the Loss Event bit is reporting the exact number of lost packets,
> >    whereas the Echo Loss bit in [RFC7713] is reporting an approximate
> >    number of lost bytes.
> >
> > What it doesn't say is why the CONEX functionality is being proposed to
> be
> > incorporated into QUIC, rather than staying at the IP level where it
> arguably
> > belongs?
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the draft could benefit from the
> explanation of why we use QUIC v1 reserved header bits instead of some bits
> in a lower layer (or more bits outside of the header in the QUIC packet).
>
> The short answer is deployability.  There is no point in writing drafts
> that will sit on a shelf, because no one will want to deploy them for at
> least a decade.  CONEX is one example, plagued by the difficulty of getting
> IPv6 extension headers deployed.  And good luck with similar IPv4
> extensions.
>
> Hence we borrow CONEX ideas but try to implement them in a way that is
> still possible, while using greasing and anti-ossification techniques.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Lars
>
> Best,
> - Igor
>
>
Folks might laugh, but I think realistically we'll be looking towards UDP
trailers at some point.