IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Tue, 18 August 2020 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 2B0593A03EC for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 SzquonNJ1vEz for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (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 2DABC3A0039 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xse497.mail2web.com ([66.113.197.243] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx18.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1k85Cm-0004ga-Nl for quic@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:15:39 +0200
Received: from xsmtp21.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.60]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BWH8h5m1GzD71 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.5.2.16] (helo=xmail06.myhosting.com) by xsmtp21.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1k84tI-000444-Lo for quic@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:55:16 -0700
Received: (qmail 26248 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2020 16:55:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.107]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.161]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail06.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <quic@ietf.org>; 18 Aug 2020 16:55:16 -0000
To: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
References: <1ce1b329-78c0-42c4-aec7-db19b74742eb@www.fastmail.com> <2bac14c6-a543-454f-a0f3-d77258c2428b@www.fastmail.com> <CALGR9oa1y59huKSx+AY3OnMveN1Bm2xChZ=cbgaw+7jxvxQG5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMQz5NR=ZjD4CfTTFZRdXv5762j0DXBc5AMLJ7cb+Q2yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1Rmu0 J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAuDgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH
Subject: Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?
Message-ID: <e3009e61-322b-2feb-85b2-07a2b749cf70@huitema.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:55:15 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gMQz5NR=ZjD4CfTTFZRdXv5762j0DXBc5AMLJ7cb+Q2yw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.197.243
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.197.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.197.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0Uc1Z+hCSaILZIw3vLzlsGSpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVUZbR67CQ7/vm /hHDJU4RXkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDcnqpk5VeF3xR4kF6iVwRtbgN zB/4Jkrw1eDLcif59ftYPZ1FsJmPMe/K9ulZM7o0U7Tmz6iKnkQL9gqsxD347235Nhqq+/HvroPq 8GSPg+5hmwN8D4LrepG7AX8WNwY8PM2DmctUkuqITdPZ8a3LuY6jSvfpO+1kZkomjtjB6X5Q5Q9f RUeIpTIC2ySfqvnqLwoxlgatmaBb0rBiK9xbkDrUqzcKIief90MVLZY9LbIZh9+IQ1oS9LBn3VIP 95Jz7ujRlJ9wSMlhvaudJXZ9EIBG/qaR+8r9SKFMmPJLf850OvZYsmoVQuOIhwKLK6IKBNB4LZ0v UHHKTzJX7b1JhLSQQ4vSj0QEim26t/Moy0UPX5E73H1QfrH/5kkrV/Cr0bm2vWdo8usP65i82q1C dZgGrpL44wdx9eXqjQjbvUopOMQJvQ/Ck3iiU+4DQAj3fuQgzT3K9JUHTNiGwfwAmxx/Wk8McinP JEkgAVrOMpbIPHELHGuybVREcKQKsZ6SpNIw4ab1wz/ORkxGH6GhbBqjwbZaNkp4x4dkd2+3zJsv UwPy3x0FYtCNEb10sHyQCLHEvD1OqP6bgZ4L66GcgBg66gs5OuzYxJgw5atIxeNDvjI/CYe5WPy0 +t1RP0azH7dgV15SWvKPEY1bLYc5DZxMPnetLBJMh51NiRRoHIA6U9caq0rFoQaVGqVO/JuJmiK7 x42VjdzChZMe6O/Did+/hGXTmfhE+Dx2/NyzMXqPhjwG7cRN841MLUWZgfb9vOnCUbNPgcPcQwzM gKHyQxUo+ql2ySTkvEFH/23XMww2BnTTFGX5/yI4Ky+1ZJcbGqc5H4PEZHeoI/d6LWFf332z7LMw LGdoi9FMQ5j9dQUvMi1YKAun15JQSJLyCT5k+MTObVKxHy/dols381l9r9ft9daDonlwd6LnuX+J u10=
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/xWTVgDVGNdFpp4VZXB8RaUr3qZE>
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, 18 Aug 2020 17:16:01 -0000

On 8/18/2020 6:04 AM, Ian Swett wrote:

> I don't believe anyone has implemented QUIC over anything besides UDP,
> which makes me think it's too early to specify it..

+1

>
> I'm also pretty risk averse and would agree with most of Martin's
> points.  I'd support editorial changes that make the text a bit less
> tightly coupled to UDP, and identification of design changes which
> could be put into potential QUICv2 work, but I doubt I'd support any
> design changes specific to this at this stage.

Please leave the spec as Quic over UDP, because that's what we have
developed and tested.

If people want to run Quic over IPv6, ATM, or MPLS, or whatever else,
they should first run an experiment, learn what works and what does not,
and publish drafts describing problems and solutions. That is, running
code instead of some theoretical exercise.

>
> Willy, I think it'd be very cool to see this run over UNIX dgram sockets.

Sure. I also run QUIC over a simulated network as part of the picoquic
test suite, without any actual UDP layer. Of course you can do that. But
that's not the design goal of the WG. Let's not pollute the main spec.

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email