Re: Updated DATAGRAM -03 draft

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Tommy.  As I've expressed before, I'm not a big fan of the ID
field(now flow identifiers) unless they have clear transport level
functionality.

Adding signaling for opening and closing these flows seems like a stronger
reason to add these IDs to the transport layer.  Have you considered
splitting this draft into two or the frame type into two and making the
version with a flow identifier more full-featured?

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:20 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> We’ve updated the QUIC DATAGRAM draft to incorporate some of the feedback
> we received at the side meeting in Prague. Notably, it clarifies:
>
> - Guidance around datagram acknowledgements
> - Datagrams do not participate in any flow control
> - Datagrams do participate in congestion control
>
> The remaining area of open discussion is around the newly re-named
> optional “flow identifiers”. The primary argument for removing these is
> that applications can add identifiers onto datagrams themselves, and the
> transport should not transmit a field that it does not do anything with. We
> did add some text clarifying that these identifiers are essentially like
> UDP ports for demultiplexing, and pointed out some *minimal* things the
> transport can do to help batch transmission of datagrams in the same flow
> and promote fate-sharing within a flow. There’s been some discussion on
> Slack of other approaches that would make these flow IDs more first-class
> citizens—adding reliable signaling for opening and closing flows, as many
> applications would also generally need some similar sort of control
> channel—but these seem a bit heavy-weight. Either way, this is an area
> where discussion is welcome and I expect the document to change.
>
> Best,
> Tommy
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *[e-mail]
> *Subject: **New Version Notification for draft-pauly-quic-datagram-03.txt*
> *Date: *July 6, 2019 at 6:30:01 PM PDT
> *To: *Eric Kinnear <[e-mail]>, David Schinazi <
> [e-mail]>, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-pauly-quic-datagram-03.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Tommy Pauly and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-pauly-quic-datagram
> Revision: 03
> Title: An Unreliable Datagram Extension to QUIC
> Document date: 2019-07-06
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 8
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pauly-quic-datagram-03.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-quic-datagram/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pauly-quic-datagram-03
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pauly-quic-datagram
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-pauly-quic-datagram-03
>
> Abstract:
>   This document defines an extension to the QUIC transport protocol to
>   add support for sending and receiving unreliable datagrams over a
>   QUIC connection.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>