IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: QUIC - Our schedule and scope

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 27 October 2017 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 3A0F613F5AB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 uCB3JapG3zeN for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22e.google.com (mail-yw0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B6FD13EDE3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id k11so6217553ywh.1 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/VbGXs5w9dQNhokkGMhjY1oMwg2DH9HVtJNz15xhGxY=; b=pFhgAEouiCkWw+yhiRxC9SF9Wlwbv3W1ttpV4lYhdL+n//AFctlO2877wzxNQC289q v4nfHQXtxL3dVNSlXyHE9I4e/pkOdoKkvXOKqZg50RY7XgWs0tZ+qz3JorKn6vV4XBDw yIhxkxO8VL1j2BZSO2l1iim0zVrOvfy5aZTlqeGoz5396Af53iburYJh0L27anJdTr7j 0JpuwtwLDz3sE3F0AE1lJuHBfzh7FxRRPI3Z9/iFI+WVw8phm6clKHFa/pLBwAX0KuCY vkGwvHWBIIvH2gSKaaxEsYuUxoRpLYh91ogdKqVijvOTsf4nqjT6uJHQtRDel56C3t0H /t0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/VbGXs5w9dQNhokkGMhjY1oMwg2DH9HVtJNz15xhGxY=; b=uSNTbvILo5UCPs3H0jj+k/xXj36y48lse5rJRYoyrKPwz3CcvBTizrPQiSuf2HlRSV DHcoTN+m045ujYriAwnYmlwhWi7RMSKemHWo61P4lzNXEDUwzf5G4R3/DQJBSI50AFUi 7py8X6lH7JfMejHrmcYmzGcvrcmSQgzm2EeXrKeuI4IVw1Mnfet+lOheDAzLo6jFxbif O1ShJay0cpCY8Rm6K1ZuAifFu9fDPdX6MnhU4OwTYlpJae4L3rfOrUG7ALXgYpn9/ZO5 hLfgHOKHb3SQkObKswiDeKE8Vg6NFHVW1IG7MzCYqurTBa57Nvg41inZiZzmEkSSG4XT LAuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUT6tB/4yp/p4G2EZOhkpmeWJ4lQJg5UzFTDIOp0b1eXTeTtjNj UWwEautcmKqzozvaTGlCHljrbeWUsnTd2YtjzdTC3g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SDjOShbTqsHYeUQHK4Kq94raIkW5WN5fgqzOLOZxF3oQH7fjylOf57GAhUgMExWOuhmvGaNjrrrb/LfMUYUf8=
X-Received: by 10.37.22.8 with SMTP id 8mr745542ybw.353.1509121577536; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.75.194 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <17E462A6-FC87-47BA-8B31-88D47F8378E9@akamai.com>
References: <BCAD8B83-11F7-4D4A-B7B3-FCBF8B45CBB4@mnot.net> <CAOdDvNqdXLXEQff03t_YSLMpUpeT74E6XuAMh_C8GNiMM9f_Uw@mail.gmail.com> <17E462A6-FC87-47BA-8B31-88D47F8378E9@akamai.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:25:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBN2uy9nX=Aa7V7YrG1iVyXkj881qNwAj_GiNGs5-vrtqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: QUIC - Our schedule and scope
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@netapp.com>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114167188d64b5055c89bf40"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/lhxycTpJEplUJgS_d-kqF6bz0F4>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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 Oct 2017 16:26:20 -0000

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:

> You might also want to consider what TLS 1.3 is going through and allow an
> escape hatch if you’ve got a good protocol but current Internet conditions
> prevent it from getting acceptably-wide deployment.  And then, the
> follow-on question: what **would** be an acceptable level of
> interference/blockage – 1, 5, 10%?
>

Well, we already know there's going to be a fair amount of blockage because
lots of firewalls block UDP entirely. Estimates vary, but generally what
I've seen is on the order of low single digit %ages. Any deployment of QUIC
is going to need some way to fall back to TLS over TCP. So, it's kind of a
cost benefit calculation of are you getting enough QUIC penetration to make
it worth it. The public experience with WebRTC suggests that the answer
will be yes, though...

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email