RE: Packet Loss Signaling for Encrypted Protocols - draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-tsvwg-lossbits

["Lubashev, Igor" <[e-mail]>]

Since tsvwg and maprg meetings are rather late in the week, I've booked a side meeting time.

So, for those who are interested in loss signaling for encrypted protocols (such as QUIC), we can discuss this:

* side meeting -- Monday 8:30am-9:30am in Sainte-Catherine
* tsvwg (Thu) -- focus on signaling, privacy, ossification
* maprg (Fri) -- focus on real world data collected and capabilities/limitations of the measurement method 

- Igor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lubashev, Igor <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 11:07 AM
> 
> Understood (and not unexpected).
> 
> For those who are interested, we'll talk about the draft in tsvwg (focus on
> signaling behavior, privacy preservation, ossification resistance, maybe specifics
> of where the signals can be carried) and maprg (focus on the data collected,
> accuracy of measurement, capabilities at detecting/measuring various causes of
> loss, and techniques to improve noise filtering due to reordering).  Both of the
> WG meetings are later in the week (tsvwg is on Thu, maprg on Fri).
> 
> Alexandre and I will be in Montreal, and we are happy to have side meetings with
> interested people.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> - Igor
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 12:49 AM
> > To: Lubashev, Igor <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Packet Loss Signaling for Encrypted Protocols - draft-
> > ferrieuxhamchaoui-tsvwg-lossbits
> >
> > Hi Igor,
> >
> > Thanks for that. Our agenda is indeed tight, so I'd recommend discussing on the
> > list and having side conversations in Montreal.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > > On 9 Jul 2019, at 2:44 pm, Lubashev, Igor <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Alexandre, Isabelle, and I have posted a draft on a method for endpoints to
> > signal packet loss to the path, while maintaining end user privacy and resisting
> > ossification.  The method is protocol-independent, but of course you get the
> > most benefit by applying the method to encrypted transports, and QUIC is
> what
> > people usually think of first in such context.
> > >
> > > The draft is not targeted at the QUIC WG specifically, since it is describing a
> > general method of such loss reporting.  But we do mention QUIC, so the WG
> may
> > find it interesting.  We would welcome feedback from the QUIC WG.
> > >
> > > Lars, Mark, I am sure the meeting agenda for Montreal is pretty tight, but if
> the
> > WG is interested, we are happy to have a quick QUIC-specific presentation on
> > this.
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > - Igor
> > >
> > > P.S.  We've implemented this proposal in some Akamai servers and have
> been
> > using it to serve actual end-user QUIC traffic for a subset of Orange customers.
> > Orange implemented a passive observer that used this signal to detect and
> > identify loss.  We can share the high-level of the results and will share the
> > detailed analysis of the data and measurement techniques in maprg.
> > >
> > > ---------------------
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-tsvwg-lossbits/
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >   This document describes a protocol-independent method that employs
> > >   two bits to allow endpoints to signal packet loss in a way that can
> > >   be used by network devices to measure and locate the source of the
> > >   loss.  The signaling method applies to all protocols with a protocol-
> > >   specific way to identify packet loss.  The method is especially
> > >   valuable when applied to protocols that encrypt transport header and
> > >   do not allow an alternative method for loss detection.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/