Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sun, 01 October 2017 20:31 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 1A444134B04 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 13:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 vK_QcW2iPr5Z for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x233.google.com (mail-yw0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::233]) (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 582D31332E3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x233.google.com with SMTP id r85so2580903ywg.1 for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Oct 2017 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=o9jErC3kk37LJ+N8RGfkNjcJP2BzSpe9BfDCBNkpMHY=; b=VvujiZmMEONjX8l3IoUcZpQHLtSX6h9T1cNWgCbOmWh1689AlxlmxRNObSON8QKvbO CzifP6WQakXjF7VCrNDfHwVrvhLQVnIn2F19Fd9Ggk8rJp19zOMD0QRsFR6G4ctuDOxm auoJIQEWhDNnluQVRG0IeMLH8xeVwD1aWtHxb9DfZKfNXaghDXc8+rrBitdlvO1ErWNe OlKrSI68sOB3lXnrujAw76Vo3e2nR6xQdz0aE97z/MyYGJxkIzSgZP80xu7K3Cedu8Nw zvkddfyGgtdOILp8az7ScGGrQyOf8BmMIVDs7X0mOqQW/FSayexk0wUa79MhlSlDEbDS /pww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=o9jErC3kk37LJ+N8RGfkNjcJP2BzSpe9BfDCBNkpMHY=; b=XHkYeIBjLy2Rf9RiruRYbrQguPprCsn1MLHAMw0w56e/PKxUnQzczUbS+xTUp/21p7 Jx2EemYb9X4ttnuO8tTjGHnbD6ujatF6w72g83S02Cg+6umS8DdrdD1Lp205YCMmFGaT hIQrP19OJE0YVv4r4pDCfJijubicnTgVO38CuxMw5zezm7H5kczovMwRvN5pgXbPm9WE Y5y8wihc5t5d1+jQmH9gbIdC8QAnrkQeQtfi+bsKYOI/sffqGZlINfkCHOpikEcpJ9wG oqb+1+t6f7eezT5X3+orKLl36lSlU22td2qidjMQ40PGPUgwG5TtAReQOeCBQqQGNBaE uZEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgcFQOmTmhJJqAqPCFdyIWDi/xSWsJaTMuIt9xbPDZ+bACBKQG7 jsDpoGHkKkaKnoscquymRjN0osHLp3xYy1mfq8MfBAeHITU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCG8qmq4MhzjMCcbH1nPgN4Fym8FadmHTgU9Dup7DStsGSH0mXpEovdiC+v6r7fBKcRlOY5BYZvQPoALFHoa34=
X-Received: by 10.129.108.201 with SMTP id h192mr11124018ywc.161.1506889912903; Sun, 01 Oct 2017 13:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.75.194 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 13:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 13:31:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMS5U6u=O+K_rx=JPXoN8cwNAo-raQLSrf=g9A7z6SE9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114dad96f9aad7055a822597"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/SdTN5UCDTa73GtnocYzSUEeNQpQ>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 20:31:58 -0000
Hi folks, As promised I spent a bunch of time hacking unidirectional streams into Minq and I'm here to report back [0]. Specifically, I implemented: - PR#643 -- Unidirectional Streams - PR#720 -- Add bidirectional streams on top of unidirectional - A bidirectional stream API that mostly mimics Minq's original API for -05. The following is kind of a wall of text, so you could also skip this and refer to my slides [1]. MINQ'S -05 ARCHITECTURE API Minq's master object is the Connection, which has a list of Streams indexed by stream ID. Applications register a handler with the connection to be notified of new events. type ConnectionHandler interface { // The connection has changed state to state |s| StateChanged(s State) // A new stream has been created (by receiving a frame // from the other side. |s| contains the stream. NewStream(s *Stream) // Stream |s| is now readable. StreamReadable(s *Stream) } Streams get created in two ways: - Locally via Connection.CreateStream() - Remotely, in which case the application is notified via a callback to ConnectionHandler.NewStream(). Streams themselves have the APIs you would expect, namely, Read(), Write(), Close(), Reset(), etc. You get notified of stream readability by a callback to ConnectionHandler.StreamReadable(), at which point you can do Stream.Read(). As expected, Stream.Read() returns WOULDBLOCK when no data ia available INTERNALS As noted above, we start with the Connection object (only relevant fields shown): type Connection struct { handler ConnectionHandler streams []*Stream maxStream uint32 outputClearQ []frame // For stream 0 outputProtectedQ []frame // For stream >= 0 } As you can see, streams are in an array slice, so they're contiguously indexed by stream ID. Right now, I have no provision for reclaiming the unused bottom part of the array, but it would be straightforward to index by |streamId| - |minStream|, which I think is consistent with the design implied by the requirement to create streams in sequence. Because Streams are bidirectional, each stream actually consists of a pair of half streams. type streamHalf struct { s *stream // pointer to parent log loggingFunction dir direction // Sending or receiving closed bool // Is the half-stream closed offset uint64 // The chunks []streamChunk maxStreamData uint64 } // Internal object to allow unit testing. type stream struct { id uint32 log loggingFunction state streamState send, recv *streamHalf blocked bool // Have we returned blocked } // Public API object, which needs access to the Connection type Stream struct { c *Connection stream } Outgoing data is enqueued into |stream.chunks|, and then periodically the connection polls the stream for all the chunks which are permitted by stream-level flow control and enqueues them into |Connection.outputClearQ| or |Connection.outputProtectedQ|. At this point, the connection owns the data and is responsible for transmitting it, subject to connection-level flow control, and (presumably) congestion control once I have that implemented [2]. Incoming data gets queued (sorted) into |stream.chunks| for later reassembly at the time when someone calls stream.read(). I'm not sure I love this, because it means I don't have a good view of the incoming queue size (which I'd need to account for separately), but it allowed me to share data structures between incoming and outgoing, which seemed kind of natural when I did it (this architecture is replicated in the unidirectional streams design, but it's probably less natural there). UNIDIRECTIONAL STREAMS ARCHITECTURE UNIDIRECTIONAL API With the unidirectional branch, Minq offers two APIs. The first is a straightforward mapping of PR#720, in which we have two objects: SendStream -- used for writing RecvStream -- used for reading As before, we have a handler object, but it's directional now: type ConnectionHandler interface { // The connection has changed state to state |s| StateChanged(s State) // A new receiving stream has been created (by receiving a frame // from the other side. |s| contains the stream. NewRecvStream(s *RecvStream) // Stream |s| is now readable. StreamReadable(s *RecvStream) } Obviously SendStreams are locally created and RecvStreams are remotely created. SendStreams can be created using Connection.CreateSendStream() and you learn about remotely created RecvStreams by a callback to ConnectionHandler.NewRecvStream(). Second-created streams can be marked as "related" to a single first-created stream, using Connection.CreateRelatedSendStream() with the appropriate RecvStream as the argument [3]. Streams have a Related() API to tell you if they are related to some other stream. The {Send,Recv}Stream APIs are about what you'd expect. You can Write() on SendStream and Read() on RecvStream(). Right now, you can Close() and Reset() SendStreams, but not do anything on RecvStreams() or than ignore them. Eventually I'll probably offer RecvStream().Mute() or something to let you send STOP_SENDING. BIDIRECTIONAL API Minq also includes a bidirectional API that's layered on top of unidirectional streams. I've created a Connection2 structure that's intended as a wrapper around Connection [4]: type Connection2 struct { Connection shim *connection2ShimHandler streams []*Stream // Odd for client originated, even for server. } type Stream struct { id uint32 send *SendStream recv *RecvStream } Basically, Stream is just a pair of SendStream and RecvStream and Connection2 does the bookkeeping to keep them connected (I even do the odd/even ID thing that QUIC-05 has). Connection2 has the same handler API as Minq for QUIC-05, and the shim is responsible for translating unidirectional events into bidirectional events. Internally, what's going on here is that when you call CreateStream() Minq creates a Stream with a nil RecvStream. When a new remote stream is detected, we check RecvStream.Related(). If they are related to an existing SendStream then we will in the relevant |Stream.send| slot. Otherwise, we create a new SendStream that's related to the incoming stream and notify the application of the creation of the new bidirectional stream. Note that this all works fine if one side does the undirectional API and one does the bidirectional API. My test programs actually exercise this. Of course, there's an assumption that the peer conforms to a 1:1 mapping. If we define unidirectional streams, we'll need some protocol mechanism to know if the other side is exercising this level of increased flexibility or not. I can imagine a number of options here (e.g., ALPN). We could also forbid 1:N mappings but I think that would be a mistake as it's a cool feature/benefit of doing unidirectional. The entire bidirectional wrapper shim is < 150 lines of Go code. (https://github.com/ekr/minq/blob/unidirectional_streams/bidi.go). Converting my test application to this API was a matter of just changing class names, e.g., s/Connectionb/Connection2/. In my implementation, I assume that at the time Minq hears about a stream, you know if its related to a given existing stream. That way you can immediately either associate it with that stream or make a new local stream. In my implementation, I always send Related Stream Id and assume that you never get an "unrelated" stream frame before a "related" one. The spec doesn't really require that right now, and offline MT suggested just sending related with offset=0 but I think that's a mistake, because it means that you need to hold stream frames in some provisional "undetermined" state until you get that frame. I would suggest instead that we require that you include the field until one of the frames is ACKed. INTERNALS Sending and receiving streams still share a lot of common components: type baseStream struct { state streamState id uint32 log loggingFunction offset uint64 chunks []streamChunk maxStreamData uint64 isRelated bool related uint32 } type sendStream struct { baseStream blocked bool } type recvStream struct { baseStream } Most of this is the same as with bidirectional streams. As above, it's probably possible to make them more asymmetrical. The connection maintains separate lists of sending and receiving streams and it's straightforward to create and access them without worrying about the odd/even stuff. COMPARISON At the end of the day, I think this shows that these designs aren't really that disssimilar. I was able to convert Minq to unidirectional streams in about 16 total hours of work (basically a long plane flight plus the next morning). While I had to make a bunch of changes to the internal structures, basically none of them modified anything tricky, and in particular the flow control mechanics and the like are basically unchanged, except for a bunch of mechanical-type transformations like referring to |sendStream.chunks| instead of |stream.send.chunks|. The only really new protocol machinery is the new frame format for related streams. There are a few pros/cons that are worth noting about these designs. - Without a bidirectional API, having unidirectional streams is more work for the programmer. However, with an API shim, the difference is trivial. - Because undirectional streams are inherently more flexible, it's possible for the sides to try to use different mappings, e.g., one side expects paired and the other expects 1:N. We'll need some way of making sure that doesn't happen, maybe ALPN? - The "Related Stream ID" frame indicator needs fleshing out a bit. From the application's perspective, it should never hear about a stream without knowing its related status. And as noted above, I think it would be best if we required that all "first flight" stream frames that are related include the fied - Undirectional streams kind of sharpen the confusion about exactly what kinds of "closure" we want to allow. Specifically, what should implementations be able to say about their willingness to receive? Right now we have STOP_SENDING, but that doesn't influence the sender's state. I don't think undirectional streams make this worse, they just require us to think it through some more. They do simplify the implementation of the closure state machine: in my QUIC-05 code, whenever one side closes I have to have checks to see if I should be transitioning to CLOSED or HALF-CLOSED, etc, which is odd because the directions are basically independent. It would probably be easier even in QUIC-05 not to reify these states but just to determine the state from the composition of the individual sub-states - Unidirectional streams don't need the kind of annoying odd-even mechanics, which was easier to code up (just having to create all the lower-numbered streams of the same parity is kind of a pain). One additional benefit here is that with QUIC-05 there are several messages which involve implicit stream creation (e.g., STREAM_MAX_DATA, and RST_STREAM) and so you need to check whether the stream is one that should have been created locally or remotely. This just doesn't happen with bidirectional streams; I do implement odd/even mechanics but because the other side has to have its stream ids increment by one, I can make sure that they have the right IDs by construction and just check to see if the stream exists in these cases. I'd like to see us get rid of odd/even no matter what. - Unidirectional streams also helps avoid some of the corner cases around bidirectional streams. Specifically, suppose I am the client and I get MAX_STREAM_DATA as the first frame on stream 2. Am I allowed to just start sending or not? You can sort of get into this situation with unidirectional streams, but because it's explicit, one might hope that the application semantics would require clear specification. - As noted above, bidirectional streams are more flexible because they let you have mappings that you can't have with unidirectional streams (unpaired, 1:N). Happy to answer more questions if people have them. Otherwise we can talk about this in Seattle. -Ekr [0] https://github.com/ekr/minq/tree/unidirectional_streams [1] https://github.com/ekr/wg-materials/blob/404898fa2d2f0a9f9bd244d2c945e66ea88502a2/interim-17-10/Unidirectional%20Streams%20in%20Minq.pdf [2] Thanks to Patrick McManus for suggesting this design. [3] In C++, you would have a single function with a default argument of |nullptr| but Go doesn't support that, hence two different arguments. [4] For implementation reasons, it's actually using Connection as a mixin, which means it's simultaneously possible to use the unidirectional and bidirectional APIs, but that's going to cause a lot of confusion. A real implementation would probably have to either commit to one or the other or do a real wrapper, so you could only use one set of APIs, at the cost of having to do more forwarded methods.
- RE: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Lubashev, Igor
- Re: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Eric Rescorla
- RE: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Mike Bishop
- RE: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Lubashev, Igor
- Re: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Eric Rescorla
- Re: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Eric Rescorla
- Re: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- RE: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Mike Bishop
- Re: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Eric Rescorla
- Re: Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- Report on Unidirectional Streams in Minq Eric Rescorla