IETF Logo Mail Archive

Comments on draft-fairhurst-quic-ack-scaling-02

Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> Fri, 27 March 2020 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
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 E1D583A099B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 02:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 hLcKN4Qiu1BG for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 02:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.cnes.fr (mx2.cnes.fr [194.199.174.201]) (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 D248B3A0990 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.72,311,1580774400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="33932121"
X-IPAS-Result: A2HyAwCUy31e/wYBeApmHAEBAQEBBwEBEQEEBAEBgXuBJYFdE4E7qFqICwoBAQEBAQEBAQEbHAQBAYREAoJVOBMCEAEBAQUBAQEBAQUCAQECAoVzWIZ5XgEVFVYmAQQbE4MMgX6ueRqKV4E4gWWMZIERR4dbg0KCLASWbZlwB4FBfgSCUpRTeI5IA4wmrR9NgS4zGieDOU8YjjYXjiWOaoEQAQE
X-URL-LookUp-ScanningError: 1
From: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Comments on draft-fairhurst-quic-ack-scaling-02
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-fairhurst-quic-ack-scaling-02
Thread-Index: AdYEHBtu3JcHPQMURsm5YiddAyp/Ig==
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:52:48 +0000
Message-ID: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED909E6@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4255-8.100.1062-25316.005
x-tm-as-result: No--19.321300-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED909E6TWMBXP03cnesnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/cMWUbtlOJMS9yaOb5DQkZ2GtV_A>
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: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:52:54 -0000

Hi,

I understand that the current spec does not impose congestion control parameters.
That being said, some default parameters/algorithm should be included in the standard because TCP end-to-end is not QUIC end-to-end.
There are some strange wireless links out there and QUIC congestion control may deserve some more specified values in the standard.

I am not sure whether the proposal in "draft-fairhurst-quic-ack-scaling-02" is the best solution, but this approach clearly help asymmetric wireless networks and does not impact much symmetrical ones.
What does the group think about including this in the standard ?

Cheers,

Nicolas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email