IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Preparing for discussion on what to do about the multipath extension milestone

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Tue, 29 September 2020 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.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 993DE3A1156 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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=gmail.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 m-uukIUuAjd4 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (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 1B6C43A114E for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id j2so7945107eds.9 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9KwWmOnUTnd1FoH9pV7M3QK4OzZFyqzCXuFz1XA6yXU=; b=s7c6f/diE801Gmn6SAB8uNeUBMD5U7yvwQx5ZU3XdMw3K+2fg1LyF9YRKsA+wypLNs uf9z+XhO5Aydu6N9vD9iIPJVIGQmU3TsThYXA2t5G8ut5YfGP1YaVR3itIlr97LtVrxV N4DZwT+CQHNN6Eqf8d5qwIS/5ZM8hBkuQaI7l36sAEXlvli84UavMqKOwFWkqLX3IXBU o7+nqKMJkYMHNSq+GZcu/58AUsJQ2aawQKNe51vCOp4W/47U4nZD3D9mlc2Hd/eBFnvH nvubPfhFsrpBn8caXq2d3aDyPnzPmZQ/SIFfszoE4VZ2rnMgx2o7W1liYM+7rdtTTa/C 6I+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9KwWmOnUTnd1FoH9pV7M3QK4OzZFyqzCXuFz1XA6yXU=; b=m8+5Oubf4OeNHRyHjNbYo3fDuAcGX57o6KTYmz5JZjPw2tRNZOfoNnPS6GQmvoGLKO RVO2e0y5uOji58dKmxU54zCM/qkgwH3a3qPEgBFYxxTnMUiMbiwV/bRQA3UBTLu+9+s9 tOjUmm5N8mjKghigayWUlWyz/DMFEU/QboPsNpRkGdlADiXoj3M0uGfOJNkjSMEfn/4F fZz1hA8elBrK2BeVkYdG+bcD52nz2rs2AvCRbK41+kci98Nlo75+WqRMY4HFlSZ7f6+G O/NtoKrICQEElhH8migMx/IuNwajKpq7/wJ69eSFiUfmBp5bxEKbJ/txVQjoUpsuLfGi Hj3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532W94P99d5iTjLpv0Zq+QbWthpcQbDP1qLNjzxYt/nh1YbnOS3q uc0pxcMsSlCHCQTSXHMac1ChcVhnXweRgktlU3M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyINJ3S6qx2JJC1JuxFVGmTx/FX1TKBXyfldfbrimCCcEmeiniGbd40yzrRC95hoZ0ArwxXztQ6Vg9xbLgVBSA=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d802:: with SMTP id o2mr5368145edj.152.1601411420573; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F0A5E38D-4117-4729-BFF8-72D97CAA9908@eggert.org> <CAKKJt-e=+XLZhNWqaG9YSLTRqyQRvDc-dagUSkFwHOByFwZ++Q@mail.gmail.com> <78651438-2fce-ba67-4f44-4228bbc79a75@uclouvain.be>
In-Reply-To: <78651438-2fce-ba67-4f44-4228bbc79a75@uclouvain.be>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:30:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oYz5E=WufurF523r-+Yb4DGKweY5QZXnLHn318BXH8hGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Preparing for discussion on what to do about the multipath extension milestone
To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dcd2ce05b079a6c3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/wxOIwEa_RmBnlEvmKNHVZPYjXLA>
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: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:30:24 -0000

Hi Olivier,


On Tue, 29 Sep 2020, 21:12 Olivier Bonaventure, <
Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> wrote:

>
> > - The complexity involved in making decisions dynamically about which
> > path to send a given packet on (which could be a research topic, given
> > certain constraints and goals).
>
> The packet scheduling problem is a much simpler problem in multipath
> transport protocol than congestion control. I would not consider this as
> a research topic given all the experience we have with MPTCP
>

As an individual and co-author on the Extensible Prioirties scheme for
HTTP, I am very interested to know how MP-QUIC scheduling would interact
with HTTP/3 servers doing HTTP prioiritization scheduling when handling
concurrent requests. Are you aware of work that has looked at this in
either MP-QUIC or MPTCP+HTTP/2? Is there clear improvement in web browser
KPIs, for instance?

Cheers
Lucas

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email