Re: [EXT] Re: [ippm] New QUIC Packet Loss Measurement (draft-cfb-ippm-spinbit-measurements)

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:41 AM Cociglio Mauro <
mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it> wrote:

> I agree with you Spencer but unfortunately S-bit already stands for Spin
> bit in the QUIC header.
>
> Sorry ;‑)
>

I was the kind of AD who followed the discussions of the Spin bit with
great interest (I'm trying to remember which IETF meeting I introduced
myself as "the Spin bit AD"), but didn't notice that detail. Thanks to you
and Dmitri for pointing it out :-)

Best,

Spencer

> Mauro
>
>
>
> *Da:* Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Inviato:* giovedì 9 aprile 2020 19:28
> *A:* Cociglio Mauro <mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it>
> *Cc:* Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>; quic@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG (
> ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>; Lubashev, Igor <ilubashe@akamai.com>;
> alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com; isabelle.hamchaoui@orange.com; Riccardo
> Sisto <riccardo.sisto@polito.it>
> *Oggetto:* Re: [EXT] Re: [ippm] New QUIC Packet Loss Measurement
> (draft-cfb-ippm-spinbit-measurements)
>
>
>
> 18
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:22 AM Cociglio Mauro <mauro.cociglio=
> 40telecomitalia.it@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ian for your email.
>
> We intend to proceed with the privacy analysis, which is the same as that
> of the *Ferrieux-Hamchaoui draft for the part of the Q-bit (and the R-bit
> should be very similar to Q-bit  in terms of privacy).*
>
> R-bit stands for “Reflected square bit”, not for “Retransmission bit”, but
> of course the letter can be changed.
>
>
>
> If you need to change the letter, "S-bit" for "Square bit" would be one of
> the best field names I've seen in a while (sooner or later, every QUIC
> developer will ask, "what's a square bit?").
>
>
>
> I'm mostly serious, and only partially bike-shedding.
>
>
>
> Best regards and happy Easter.
>
>
>
> The same to you!
>
>
>
> Spencer
>
>
>
>
>
> Mauro
>
>
>
> _____________________
>
> Mauro Cociglio
>
> TIM - CT.TA.EI
>
> Via G. Reiss Romoli, 274
>
> 10148 - Torino (Italy)
>
> Tel.: +390112285028
>
> Mobile: +393357669751
>
> _____________________
>
>
>
>
>
> *Da:* Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Inviato:* mercoledì 8 aprile 2020 21:44
> *A:* Cociglio Mauro <mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
> <mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia..it>>
> *Cc:* quic@ietf.org; Lubashev, Igor <ilubashe@akamai.com>;
> alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com; isabelle.hamchaoui@orange.com; Riccardo
> Sisto <riccardo.sisto@polito.it>; IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <
> ippm@ietf.org>
> *Oggetto:* [EXT] Re: [ippm] New QUIC Packet Loss Measurement
> (draft-cfb-ippm-spinbit-measurements)
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing this.  From my perspective, this is an improvement upon
> the previous proposal in terms of robustness.  This design feels very
> similar to the spin bit, and seems trivial to implement, which are also
> nice properties.
>
>
>
> Also, QUIC doesn't really have retransmissions, so the 'R bit' name always
> made me a bit uncomfortable.
>
>
>
> I'm not saying QUIC should adopt this yet, but I'd be interested in seeing
> a privacy analysis completed for it.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:25 AM Cociglio Mauro <mauro.cociglio=
> 40telecomitalia.it@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Dear QUIC WG Members.
>
>
>
> We submitted to IPPM WG a draft where we described a new 2 bit packet loss
> methodology (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cfb-ippm-spinbit-measurements-01).
>
> *The measurement of packet loss is under discussion in QUIC WG and our
> draft introduces two alternatives about it.*
>
> *T**he first one is a spin-bit dependent signal and uses a single bit.
> The second one, described in the following linked slides, is a
> standalone solution based on a two bits loss signal and on alternate
> marking (RFC8321)..*
>
> *This last methodology **improves, in our opinion, the algorithm proposed
> by Orange and Akamai described in* *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-quic-lossbits-03
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-quic-lossbits-03>**.*
>
>
>
> *The 2 bits are the sQuare bit (Q-bit) and the Reflection square bit
> (R-bit).*
>
> *The Q-bit doesn’t change from the Ferrieux-Hamchaoui draft but the R-bit
> substitutes the L-bit.*
>
> *This avoids the L-bit dependence from an internal protocol variable, a
> problem raised in the last QUIC interim meeting.*
>
>
>
> You can find the slides, we prepared for the IPPM interim meeting, at the
> following link:
> https://github.com/ietf-ippm/meeting-materials/blob/aa486f7ead28b9f55c5ef499e5c9ed33ab06daf9/ietf107-virtual/Slides/07-spinbit-measurements.pdf
>
>
>
> Comments and suggestions are always welcome.
>
>
>
> Of course we are available to present our proposals in the next QUIC WG
> meeting or to arrange a Webex side meeting if needed.
>
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
> Mauro, Fabio, Giuseppe, Massimo and Riccardo
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________
>
> Mauro Cociglio
>
> TIM - CT.TA.EI
>
> Via G. Reiss Romoli, 274
>
> 10148 - Torino (Italy)
>
> Tel.: +390112285028 <+39%20011%20228%205028>
>
> Mobile: +393357669751 <+39%20335%20766%209751>
>
> _____________________
>
>
>
>
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>
>
> <https://on.tim.it/banner-mail-dip>
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle
> persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante
> dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora
> abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di
> darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua
> distruzione, Grazie.
>
> * This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain
> privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination,
> copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and
> advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. *
>
> *Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.*
>