Re: Heads up -- unifying of multipath options.

[Yanmei Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi everyone,

As a member of the mpquic-authors group, we’re really open for different ideas and suggestions, and this could help to draw a conclusion on whether or not we should merge PR #103, and publish these changes in a new version(-02) before IETF 114.

As an individual, I’d like to express a little about why I support the effort for the unified proposal.  For the following reasons:
 * As we could analyze from mechanism and experience data, multiple PN spaces take the best efficiency of ACK frames because of less ACK range holes. For scenarios which use non-zero Connection IDs, it’s clear that choose multiple pn space solution would get better performance.
 * For scenarios which use zero-length Connection IDs, the natural way to support multi-path is to use single PN space under all paths.

PR #103 is the combination of the most valuable part for both single and multiple PN space solutions. We could get best ACK efficiency and support zero-length Connection IDs at the same time. Besides, we don’t have the risk of failure for interop test (this could happen if 2 endpoints choose to support different PN space solutions in the current version -01). In the unified version, we could distinguish these situations with the CID in the packet header.

Please feel free to let us know your opinions.


Best regards,
Yanmei