Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: WGLC review of draft-ietf-quic-recovery-29

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jana,

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 8:30 PM Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]> wrote:

> At a high level, the recovery doc is _not_ written with DC environments in
> mind. We can make that clear in the document, if that helps. There are
> other things as well that won't work well in a DC environment, and I
> imagine a separate doc would be helpful here that specifies how QUIC ought
> to be tuned for DCs.
>

Two things.

My response to Ian was just about the history of what TSV has come to
expect for encapsulation protocol behaviors in the past half-dozen years
("if you are doing stuff that's not safe on an unmanaged network, this is
what you should do; if you're doing the same thing on a managed network,
this is what you can probably get away with, and please point to your
circuit breaker functionality in case what you're doing turns out to be a
Really Bad Idea" - paraphrasing over a lot of subtilty).

Those documents tended to have both cases in a single document, along with
the rest of the encapsulation protocol, in many cases because the
"unmanaged networks" considerations were being added to a single document
that already described "managed networks" considerations.

Pretty much every conversation I was involved in at QUIC charter time
assumed that we would want to swap recovery functionality in and out over
time without reopening draft-ietf-quic-transport, so having a separate
recovery document was the right thing to do.

Because QUIC already has a separate "safe for unmanaged networks" recovery
document, I think putting other recovery strategies in separate documents
is a fine plan.

Does that make sense?

Best,

Spencer

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:18 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Ian,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:22 PM Ian Swett <ianswett=
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the comments, I filed #3918
>>> <https://github..com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3918> and #3919
>>> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3919>
>>>
>>> For my background, are you aware other transport RFCs have normative
>>> statements that only apply to the public internet?
>>>
>>
>> Tunnels are transport, right? :-)
>>
>> The earliest RFC I was involved with, that made distinctions about what
>> you can get away with on the public internet versus in a managed network,
>> was https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7510#section-5. This was negotiated
>> after a fairly vigorous back-and-forth between transport people and
>> non-transport people during IETF Last Call.
>>
>> We put together a design team with a few people to try to work through
>> this for the myriad other protocols that people wanted to tunnel over UDP,
>> once and for all.
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8084 was published as a BCP.
>>
>> I may be forgetting other stuff, of course.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>>
>>> Also, if you're that well buffered and the bursts are that large, do you
>>> still start with IW10, or do you start with a larger window?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Ian
>>>
>>>>