IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: QUIC API (was: Re: Small size of core QUIC library to replace TCP for embedded system)

"Bajpai, Vaibhav" <vaibhav.bajpai@tum.de> Fri, 07 August 2020 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <vaibhav.bajpai@tum.de>
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 352603A0C79 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 06:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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=tum.de
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 3yg2htQSGmsS for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 06:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postout2.mail.lrz.de (postout2.mail.lrz.de [129.187.255.138]) (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 161853A0C73 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 06:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postout2.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BNQp061Z0zyZ6 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:15:20 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: postout.lrz.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=tum.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tum.de; h= mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id:content-type :content-type:content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to :references:message-id:date:date:subject:subject:from:from :received:received:received:received; s=postout; t=1596806120; bh=Xke9ZYjLrm4f29wTsEb2BS2Ob48EWupR9ZUocdba8c4=; b=QBoVOdWU4jY0 XIWh68bqsz7S8KzDwX14TnoUzBhX0APLUlBhmdhFLQ0jAAPI1/jOtGHGUEhc98fa bwiX6LzSG4qcsHb3297tcQON2lstfnwh5LntHJEs+YOykBWgcYSYXGsFO7cEDpOX QlD1zWNYbwRvdL4YUuvTW78+o0edenlrZqtTWhxtahkhfHq9I/ldsbnf4VwfCrp2 rIyQg4sLVjlRpwNkQGMkRvUhSXCaz+zsjf1xtfmcrg+KkoAoM4kN775ihJKK1JEV iJO8g3nihVEza1nWT6rHFpyUdJMvxTjwDF8UAtMYvXgZd5bFFiVAPdJr8iVbQL72 jz6RHWaB0A==
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lrz.de in lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de
Received: from postout2.mail.lrz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de (lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 20024) with LMTP id l51doBB_vKrL for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:15:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from BADWLRZ-SWMBB05.ads.mwn.de (BADWLRZ-SWMBB05.ads.mwn.de [IPv6:2001:4ca0:0:108::156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "BADWLRZ-SWMBB05", Issuer "BADWLRZ-SWMBB05" (not verified)) by postout2.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BNQp02l2gzyX8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:15:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from BADWLRZ-SWMBX11.ads.mwn.de (2001:4ca0:0:108::167) by BADWLRZ-SWMBB05.ads.mwn.de (2001:4ca0:0:108::156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:15:14 +0200
Received: from BADWLRZ-SWMBX11.ads.mwn.de ([fe80::f0dd:745f:a1b4:5014]) by BADWLRZ-SWMBX11.ads.mwn.de ([fe80::f0dd:745f:a1b4:5014%13]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:15:14 +0200
From: "Bajpai, Vaibhav" <vaibhav.bajpai@tum.de>
To: quic <quic@ietf.org>
CC: "Bajpai, Vaibhav" <vaibhav.bajpai@tum.de>
Subject: Re: QUIC API (was: Re: Small size of core QUIC library to replace TCP for embedded system)
Thread-Topic: QUIC API (was: Re: Small size of core QUIC library to replace TCP for embedded system)
Thread-Index: AQHWX+/gEQiD1kx6oEewwKE9rFeEKakrqHcAgADvtAA=
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:15:14 +0000
Message-ID: <8bfc8ee2-fd02-407d-9d49-4f4ff580f780@BADWLRZ-SWMBB05.ads.mwn.de>
References: <CAA=hcWS0V8ipsoAEFK3ejdA++Vzi+czth37=ntP4mnt8d=mtRg@mail.gmail.com> <F384B33C-70F8-45EF-AB5C-30D0A145659A@eggert.org> <CAA=hcWQ60GH2TnjvqBEGvVQ1whxNYwEWjQ+b9FW948GKvN570Q@mail.gmail.com> <2499749.AO4zfZtjs8@linux-9daj> <3D493D2B-BC8D-4CE9-B189-48770C3FA06F@eggert.org> <CAM4esxR+s-SCVOWb_-3TciVRk8Sp5NVWtjggqXM_XD2r3jup=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxR+s-SCVOWb_-3TciVRk8Sp5NVWtjggqXM_XD2r3jup=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthMechanism: 04
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: BADWLRZ-SWMBX11.ads.mwn.de
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [94.218.226.221]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <A8FBD5C9AA38484EB3C9A96337F2AD17@ads.mwn.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/jQOdx-puxC1JFHH_MMtdSSIwIjo>
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, 07 Aug 2020 13:15:25 -0000

Hi,

Recent work shows that different implementations behave quite differently:
https://doi.org/10.1145/3405796.3405828

Takeaways of related academic work on QUIC is increasingly becoming a 
function of which implementation(s) was(were) used to perform the study.

It is tricky to study QUIC behaviour for application workload(s) at the 
moment since implementations are so divergent that rewriting the application
using X-different implementations and then repeating the experiments to 
converge to a conclusion is the only choice left. However, QUIC is also a
moving target where snapshot views quicly ;) loose value with time, 
demanding a longitudinal view which makes it even harder.

-- Vaibhav


> On 7. Aug 2020, at 00:57, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On this subject, (speaking as individual) I think it would be useful to define a QUIC application API. SCTP did one (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6458/) and the idea that an application would have to be written separately for each quic implementation is silly.


------------------------------
Vaibhav Bajpai, www.vaibhavbajpai.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email