Spin bit as a negotiated option
<alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com> Wed, 03 October 2018 10:06 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.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 806B3130F89 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 03:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.291
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=2.309, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 JDadyriJhKs8 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 03:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E1FE131084 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 03:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.67]) by opfednr25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42QBW65qzMzCrVZ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:06:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.3]) by opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42QBW64rL3zDq7V; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:06:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.193.4.89] (10.168.234.2) by OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.114.31.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:06:26 +0200
Subject: Spin bit as a negotiated option
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
References: <14531_1538460420_5BB30B04_14531_237_4_c0f3a391-9897-80b0-575b-aa73edad0d52@orange.com> <9A63F295-5DC5-4992-9A9C-A98F72C8430D@eggert.org> <22440_1538469028_5BB32CA4_22440_292_2_8e00a462-2bbf-acf0-1195-74269a0c2fbd@orange.com> <3E3DBC15-FE42-47CF-AF7A-1F2597ED2390@eggert.org> <24019_1538484216_5BB367F8_24019_26_1_8e6b0d8e-78f0-56c7-e731-da2ff22cb194@orange.com> <08A9C80F-59E6-46EE-A4D4-1F78F5085CF7@eggert.org> <9737_1538485723_5BB36DDB_9737_147_1_82e0e028-b0e8-5e09-7bd5-e66db97c556a@orange.com> <E7479831-9594-444E-9545-A162E8D9B154@eggert.org> <32072_1538492813_5BB3898D_32072_266_1_8380ff40-29fe-269b-8ed7-4331c9e53f4d@orange.com> <MWHPR22MB0991D93D706031603B077BFCDAE80@MWHPR22MB0991.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <CAKcm_gM+zAEwfimHsorsWprJgS7O++85EOjpQoNY0LviaQ+KNQ@mail.gmail.com> <45751C2A-9F6C-4447-8D70-11ABE8C07F8D@trammell.ch> <CANatvzzCvmbu=bN1C-UCzNaT6EUPVCMPwY53wyFNkKa4HQT00g@mail.gmail.com> <E32A1E8D-0FD7-47F3-B026-10D46E201D54@trammell.ch>
From: alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com
CC: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Message-ID: <21082_1538561186_5BB494A2_21082_335_1_26ed0978-a314-37d1-3c97-5924d62ef539@orange.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:04:45 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E32A1E8D-0FD7-47F3-B026-10D46E201D54@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr-xx-moderne
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.168.234.2]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/aGad69N5fdLnw2T1p3TtRZPOUbY>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 10:06:29 -0000
On 10/03/18 09:58, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: > Backing off the MUST for now for such situations is IMO a good tradeoff, > though, especially since we only need fractions of a percent of deployment to > start seeing useful signal for baseline/anomaly measurement of large > aggregates. If the consensus is that we must allow for such situations, then there are two possibilities: (a) weak spec language (MAY WISH TO or similar) => many implementations will simply drop it (b) negotiated option where the negotiation mechanism is mandatory In the vein of (b), Christian suggested offline to introduce negotiation to allow for experimentation of the remaining two reserved bits. Then may be we can synthesize both ideas by the following proposal: - in the first few exchanges of the 5-tuple, use the three bits for option negotiation - then use them as defined by the selected option Example encodings: 000 : nothing 001 : spin bit alone : S00 010 : spin bit + VEC : SVV ... : other extensions The negotiation mechanism allows both endpoints to force 000. And since it is in the clear first byte, it allows on-path observers to identify the option without resorting to heuristics; this helps in the case of a small support ratio. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
- Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- Re: Spin bit decision Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Nick Banks
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- RE: Spin bit decision Lucas Pardue
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- RE: Spin bit decision Lucas Pardue
- Re: Spin bit decision Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Spin bit decision Lars Eggert
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit decision Ted Hardie
- Re: Spin bit decision Ian Swett
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit decision Marten Seemann
- signaling that QUIC is QUIC was Re: Spin bit deci… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decision Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Marten Seemann
- Re: Spin bit decision alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit decision Kazuho Oku
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- RE: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Lucas Pardue
- Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- Re: a proposed way forward was Re: Spin bit decis… Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit decision Mike Bishop
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit decision Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Mike Bishop
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marten Seemann
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- RE: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Brian Trammell (IETF)
- SV: Spin bit as a negotiated option Marcus Ihlar
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Spin bit as a negotiated option Kazuho Oku