IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Updates on the "Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections" draft

"Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ilubashe@akamai.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 A81F2120270; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 RZZchpu4tY9G; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 9A40F1207FF; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050093.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x69Hbu3V017974; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 18:42:35 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=ubi978cg1W0/Fe0e0Ut3RaYlZncFBcpswpuXhlcCDAI=; b=Qqlq5I1/uHccXC9XnrLkOXfJO4h+ZKbBOPA4HR+Q30PgIXiOwRgBGJClUhL7SHH7N9KO B3ggIxmehqdKUiyl/4dc+252iJy41gYvD7DV+mKDQ4PJWUskvRJClV+IZpv4xmz7KE7e 4cNfq6iPcm2F3wAJK/4JCHpK7GKk8BEBx/fDEgsESSe+DBvy18aXhvpKuK/ZDnbqgukC uxi7u6+E4jrlSMvXp4cLYURwqWyHEr75oKufuEh++yinhu7SAQnNnt9Y1A7DqioZRtfU l1S86zhgo/kjdp4BKORayfWOTS9naUV2AIe0/Qz/EWflbVKRJUcjmOpBAlhAHlZxcAM1 QA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2tjjwpnw6q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Jul 2019 18:42:35 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x69Hf7Bw000559; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:42:34 -0700
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2tjsm80qch-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Jul 2019 10:42:34 -0700
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.105) by ustx2ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:42:32 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.105]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.105]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.004; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:42:33 -0500
From: "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com>
To: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, "'tls@ietf.org'" <tls@ietf.org>
CC: "'gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk'" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "'emile.stephan@orange.com'" <emile.stephan@orange.com>
Subject: RE: Updates on the "Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections" draft
Thread-Topic: Updates on the "Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections" draft
Thread-Index: AdUP24Zg+1VIa8FMRoKfDVG/fwUlTgmnZqQg
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 17:42:32 +0000
Message-ID: <998fba75095b4417bb6a41a2cd2075c4@ustx2ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1EBEEF69@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
In-Reply-To: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1EBEEF69@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.36.122]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-09_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907090207
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-09_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907090208
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/anB-03ub6gP8AlA9Fy1eOiNdZ2w>
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 17:42:48 -0000

Nico, thanks for caring about clients behind high-latency links.

> The NewSessionTicket carries an additional field named 'early_data'
> that indicates to the client the maximum size of application data to
> insert in the 0-RTT message.

I see that draft-ietf-quic-tls requires use of initial_max_data instead and required "early_data" to carry no information.  See section 4.5 "Enabling 0-RTT".  Is there an advantage to use one vs the other? 


> BDP_metadata

All these parameters the client can calculate itself. You mention that the clients may actually reject BDP_metadata, if its contents seem suspect to it. So is this structure useful because some clients will be able to make use of these fields on a subsequent 0-RTT connection but would not care to implement the needed measurements themselves? Or is there some other reason?

Best wishes,

- Igor

-----------------------

From: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:47 AM
Subject: Updates on the "Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections" draft

Dear all, 

Following the different feedbacks on this draft, we have proposed an updated version on the "Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections". 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp/

The draft proposes a solution where path characteristics are shared between the peers to improve the ingress traffic for 0-RTT connections.

The difference with version 01 are mainly based on the received feedback.
In short, we now a BDP_metadata structure so that various path parameters can be exposed to the client (MTU, RTT, bandwidth, loss-rate).
We have also added a section to discuss what happens when BDP is used incorrectly.

Let us know if we have any views or interest in this proposal. 

Cheers,

Nico for the authors

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email