Re: CONEX? (was: Re: Q and L loss bits)
"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Thu, 21 November 2019 06:44 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
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 93E5B120124 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 22:44:37 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 z0XJhmiK1wsM for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 22:44:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FE7612000F for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 22:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-2-0001.mail.infomaniak.ch ([10.5.36.108]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xAL6iJBR026073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:44:19 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:2401:fa00:2d:11:98db:c89c:b4db:c241] (unknown [IPV6:2401:fa00:2d:11:98db:c89c:b4db:c241]) by smtp-2-0001.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 330CB10032D68; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:44:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: CONEX? (was: Re: Q and L loss bits)
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <A5687771-2F40-419F-A8A2-00FFF919B3FA@eggert.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:44:11 +0800
Cc: "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, "alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com" <alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com>, Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A6DB3084-447B-467A-B164-310C83A6526C@trammell.ch>
References: <20191119143218.GB2789@ubuntu-dmitri> <24388_1574174932_5DD400D4_24388_372_7_1574174948.30247.49.camel@orange.com> <20191119150829.GD2789@ubuntu-dmitri> <20191119192622.GE2789@ubuntu-dmitri> <a21bc373-1fda-836e-7efc-599832ae575d@huitema.net> <20191120014850.GC16017@ubuntu-dmitri> <cd2e9389a61d49eabad2b0fac2f4db96@ustx2ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com> <A5687771-2F40-419F-A8A2-00FFF919B3FA@eggert.org>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.6.0.2.8
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/aOKpPxxj0_3fZzkq3HXWF6ks5yA>
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 06:44:37 -0000
hi Lars, This is kind of where I was going with the "expose CWR-like semantics for loss" thing; "just do conex" is a much better shorthand for that. Thanks, cheers, Brian > On 21 Nov 2019, at 14:42, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm wondering whether specifying a CONEX mapping for QUIC would satisfy the needs that quic-lossbits attempts to address? We could reuse an existing piece of IETF work. > > See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7713 for an overview and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7786 for the TCP mapping. > > Lars >
- Q and L loss bits: which is which? Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Christian Huitema
- RE: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Lubashev, Igor
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? alexandre.ferrieux
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Christian Huitema
- RE: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Lubashev, Igor
- Re: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Dmitri Tikhonov
- RE: Q and L loss bits: which is which? Lubashev, Igor
- CONEX? (was: Re: Q and L loss bits) Lars Eggert
- Re: CONEX? (was: Re: Q and L loss bits) Brian Trammell (IETF)
- RE: CONEX? (was: Re: Q and L loss bits) Lubashev, Igor
- Re: CONEX? (was: Re: Q and L loss bits) Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: CONEX? (was: Re: Q and L loss bits) alexandre.ferrieux