Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonaventure-quic-atsss-overview-00.txt

Lars Eggert <> Wed, 03 June 2020 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4CB3A0C1B for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7CGkFt-YeuKe for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5556C3A0C3C for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:0:35:2546:2eeb:f496:7429] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:0:35:2546:2eeb:f496:7429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4018361CFF0; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:48:46 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1591166926; bh=Ae2SO3OliSPLq9xcfpe0sFGgs1HSEuz4vcI0znGWpYY=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=e/i2tLmZvO2Dev0kCXFYDOLPTnfypHMZZkVLGeOv7OytlkvuBx9YE0zLHkTc8S2NM V1l0i1/p3IB6xSMgg3t1rdcZssOiAx8qKpfyVT2varwQVE4QDy0qQotB4vTTXLd2mD iitDxlDAf+5joDaggMYA6pptCXNW4gnR3o98siGc=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_201694B0-2654-4D5A-A319-ABBF7E0D353B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonaventure-quic-atsss-overview-00.txt
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:48:45 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Christian Huitema <>, Mirja Kuehlewind <>, Matt Joras <>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>, IETF QUIC WG <>
To: Olivier Bonaventure <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-MailScanner-ID: 4018361CFF0.A70D7
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 06:48:57 -0000


(hat off)

On 2020-6-3, at 9:41, Olivier Bonaventure <> wrote:
> As an enduser, I have a contractual relationship with my network provider and this contract can include strong privacy protections. Using the ATSSS service of a provider that I trust and needs to obey to specific laws could be better from a privacy viewpoint.

so that's certainly debatable.

Apart from the privacy aspect though, tunneling all traffic through an operator proxy that would otherwise not be in the path certainly can have performance and management aspects. It's probably going to add delay due to route stretch and possibly queueing, and can limit throughput due to processing overheads or overload.