Re: [tsvwg] Re draft-kuhn-quic-bdpframe-extension-01
Nicolas Kuhn <nicolas.kuhn.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 24 March 2023 15:58 UTC
Return-Path: <nicolas.kuhn.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693DEC14CE4A; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:58:12 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d-Zovtx-6WvA; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x231.google.com (mail-oi1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1A2DC14CEFD; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x231.google.com with SMTP id r84so308712oih.11; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1679673487; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=3/gE4sokZZlmODLLGN2xme0VZuq7dOCM5fTy3svOQKc=; b=m1p3ravGLFDUrqT6iXP9LAS1eYWnyXcky1QZaKMjE5EEfTmXvqhHiKmlIjH303exyV NTjqzHeCcYCiWOo4CFH8ZU8mgJBcBpNygtlMdyscv9L7zm0GZYJACShPgrtSI3jCJYkp mb3BamB2PdC1VgbLQuz6ydX8HbA9+sTFdgsAFV55qOsx6WqfzxV7aSTPRV0ui56KckRj q9T05jUV05nKSsqmsFhQtGSuCmIL98u2gyvW55S1ahTEIUQwnataTKXfziXGdDZr/c3C GK+jP386PcKE1IV7Q039CG+yfPszcIbW/g41WgT5a6+v39FSU/Vuj7HPoHPSgucOMKIL UC4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679673487; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=3/gE4sokZZlmODLLGN2xme0VZuq7dOCM5fTy3svOQKc=; b=NIqBCyzg/sX9o6gPI0E+PA21UB54dwuOWGRRzhG38c0WWqeiqp1C340DIK8pENs0B9 7kNNC3yk+nl482TXUtVQmXg487Xm0SRbLou+VC6MpjkfM3gYVgjz3UjIftUOxo4/0cwF fCMi1Ii4qZIoSs8M8T+Dg7YSWm8zfF/jkXwCYLau1Vwr2DbuoFqRsoY+K6gC8n3VujU7 vWXb+lTymmXP5CyV/9BEVT6HWxhkZdXiGQZbs+fgmK43zN5mm+hZKsOUY65hcfNxU7Y/ bPmbMNmondfJnw4NgaqfZfdQXqDRpoqf0pRekC/b0IZ8Imw4PDad5rlSnfly6SJcCxHJ 0wOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUAzD90Zt37ZOsG8BMT9zoq4qNTjfsofSoFA7icIe6eMwM7y1x2 wX/lq2KNsQw48jAaYxvOlaVu9HqW05vgyRZhnk8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+iTonTMG3FpkonkLwyiieb6ntzbGp8sgrdrPDpMhTxT2/8sY76VxmEBTghWbIzImLFstmJtGWXuNyEjsiwClI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:5c1:b0:383:c459:1bc with SMTP id d1-20020a05680805c100b00383c45901bcmr913508oij.0.1679673484346; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB3647066F49BB313843F4886F90BE9@MN2PR11MB3647.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3647066F49BB313843F4886F90BE9@MN2PR11MB3647.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Nicolas Kuhn <nicolas.kuhn.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 16:57:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL0D2oR3Sy_EPLpS3_+F9pHiTkfDAdwKhT7-ddWdDHYu312e3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Border, John" <John.Border@hughes.com>
Cc: "emile.stephan@orange.com" <emile.stephan@orange.com>, "Gorry Fairhurst (gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005f871b05f7a77522"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/iSRvzY3wUIUJx8-ekOiQGhD_qVI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Re draft-kuhn-quic-bdpframe-extension-01
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 15:58:12 -0000
Hi, Sorry for my late reply. Thank you so much for your comments and questions. I have added everything as issues in the GITHUB repo to not lose track of how the questions have been reflected in the document updates. I have already fixed the various nits. Kind regards, Nico On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 7:04 PM Border, John <John.Border@hughes.com> wrote: > > > Some comments and questions… > > > > Since the idea for BDP Frame is to extend the QUIC protocol, is an > Intended Status of Informational the right choice? > > > NK : Good question. I do not know honestly. > The BDP Frame document is very oriented towards being used by Careful > Resume method. I assume this is on purpose. (I had always envisioned it > being used more generically that but have no other specific use case in > mind at this point.) > > > NK : Indeed, careful resume is a companion draft. This link should be made clearer in the documents. > Minor… In the Introduction, add a very short summary as to what the hash > mentioned in Step 1 is used for. > > > > In Section 3.1, re Saved BB… If using bytes_in_flight Is not recommended > what is recommended? > > > NK : This depends a lot on the congestion control that is exploited. I am not sure that we can reach a consensus on what this parameter could be in a generic manner. > In Section 3.1.1, it is not entirely clear what the difference is between > using BDP_FRAME and activating the optimization. Is the idea to allow > saving the CC values at the sender without sending them in a BDP_FRAME to > the receiver and the use of saved CC values is the optimization? > > > NK : Will clarify in updates of the document. > I assume, in Section 3.2 re the first sentence in the third paragraph that > the mechanism for identifying that it is the same receiver is being left > independent from the specification of BDP-FRAME. Or is this referring to > the Endpoint Token discussed in Section 3.3.1 in which case maybe that > section should be pointed to? > > > NK : Will clarify in updates of the document. > Re Section 3.2.2… I cannot find anything clearly labeled Rationale #N > except in the appendix. The solutions are in Section 6.1. (If referencing > the appendix for the rationale number is the intent, maybe it should not be > in an appendix but at least a reference to the table should be mentioned.) > And, in any case, in the appendix, there is no Rationale #1. > > > NK : Will clarify in updates of the document. > > > John > > > > > > Nits and readability enhancements… > > > > In the Abstract and again in the Introduction, change the first use of > “CC” to “Congestion Control (CC)”. > > > > In the Abstract… “amde" should be “made”. “This CC parameters” should be > “The CC parameters”. > > > > In the Introduction, Step 2… “portuon” should be “portion”. “premitted" > should be “permitted”. > > > > Change the first use of “BDP” to “Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP)” or > “bandwidth-delay product (BDP)”. I think the first standalone use is in > Section 1.1. > > > > The first statement in the third paragraph of Section 1.1 is a sentence > fragment. > > > > In Section 3.1, the description of the Hash says that value is derived > from “other” CC parameters. The phrasing could be interpreted as being > values outside of those inside the BDP_FRAME, i.e. from the sender’s own > information, or other values within the BDP_FRAME. Rephrase to make it > clear which. > > > > Really nitty… In Section 3.1 Saved BB, the second statement is a fragment. > > > > In Section 3.1 Save RTT, the third sentence is essentially the same as the > second sentence. > > > > In Section 3.1.1, for value 1, remove the duplicate “the”. > > > > In the first sentence of Section 3.2.1, “it could also” should be just > “could also”. > > > > In the second bullet of Section 3.3, “likeability” should be > “linkability”. Also, the Note at the end of Section 3.3 seems like it > should be part of Section 3.3.1. > > > > In the second paragraph of Section 3.3.1… “observable eavesdroppers” > should be “observable to eavesdroppers”. The last sentence is essentially > a duplicate of the second sentence. “provideing" should be “providing”. > > > > In the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.3.2, ”stroing” > should be “strong”. > > >
- [tsvwg] Re draft-kuhn-quic-bdpframe-extension-01 Border, John
- Re: [tsvwg] Re draft-kuhn-quic-bdpframe-extension… Nicolas Kuhn