Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: WGLC review of draft-ietf-quic-recovery-29

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

At a high level, the recovery doc is _not_ written with DC environments in
mind. We can make that clear in the document, if that helps. There are
other things as well that won't work well in a DC environment, and I
imagine a separate doc would be helpful here that specifies how QUIC ought
to be tuned for DCs.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:18 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Ian,
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:22 PM Ian Swett <ianswett=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the comments, I filed #3918
>> <https://github..com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3918> and #3919
>> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3919>
>>
>> For my background, are you aware other transport RFCs have normative
>> statements that only apply to the public internet?
>>
>
> Tunnels are transport, right? :-)
>
> The earliest RFC I was involved with, that made distinctions about what
> you can get away with on the public internet versus in a managed network,
> was https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7510#section-5. This was negotiated
> after a fairly vigorous back-and-forth between transport people and
> non-transport people during IETF Last Call.
>
> We put together a design team with a few people to try to work through
> this for the myriad other protocols that people wanted to tunnel over UDP,
> once and for all.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8084 was published as a BCP.
>
> I may be forgetting other stuff, of course.
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>
>
>> Also, if you're that well buffered and the bursts are that large, do you
>> still start with IW10, or do you start with a larger window?
>>
>> Thanks, Ian
>>
>>>