draft-ietf-quic-applicability-00.txt   draft-ietf-quic-applicability-01.txt 
Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind
Internet-Draft B. Trammell Internet-Draft B. Trammell
Intended status: Informational ETH Zurich Intended status: Informational ETH Zurich
Expires: January 4, 2018 July 03, 2017 Expires: April 28, 2018 October 25, 2017
Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol
draft-ietf-quic-applicability-00 draft-ietf-quic-applicability-01
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses the applicability of the QUIC transport This document discusses the applicability of the QUIC transport
protocol, focusing on caveats impacting application protocol protocol, focusing on caveats impacting application protocol
development and deployment over QUIC. Its intended audience is development and deployment over QUIC. Its intended audience is
designers of application protocol mappings to QUIC, and implementors designers of application protocol mappings to QUIC, and implementors
of these application protocols. of these application protocols.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Necessity of Fallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Necessity of Fallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Zero RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Zero RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Thinking in Zero RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Thinking in Zero RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Here There Be Dragons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Here There Be Dragons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Session resumption versus Keep-alive . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Session resumption versus Keep-alive . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Stream versus Flow Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Use of Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Stream versus Flow Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Graceful connection closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Paketization and latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Information exposure and the Connection ID . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Server-Generated Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Graceful connection closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Using Server Retry for Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Information exposure and the Connection ID . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Use of Versions and Cryptographic Handshake . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Server-Generated Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Using Server Retry for Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Use of Versions and Cryptographic Handshake . . . . . . . . . 8
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
QUIC [QUIC] is a new transport protocol currently under development QUIC [QUIC] is a new transport protocol currently under development
in the IETF quic working group, focusing on support of semantics as in the IETF quic working group, focusing on support of semantics as
needed for HTTP/2 [QUIC-HTTP] such as stream-multiplexing to avoid needed for HTTP/2 [QUIC-HTTP] such as stream-multiplexing to avoid
head-of-line blocking. Based on current deployment practices, QUIC head-of-line blocking. Based on current deployment practices, QUIC
is encapsulated in UDP. The version of QUIC that is currently under is encapsulated in UDP. The version of QUIC that is currently under
development will integrate TLS 1.3 [TLS13] to encrypt all payload development will integrate TLS 1.3 [TLS13] to encrypt all payload
data and most control information. data and most control information.
skipping to change at page 4, line 29 skipping to change at page 4, line 29
3.2. Here There Be Dragons 3.2. Here There Be Dragons
Retransmission or (malicious) replay of data contained in 0-RTT Retransmission or (malicious) replay of data contained in 0-RTT
resumption packets could cause the server side to receive two copies resumption packets could cause the server side to receive two copies
of the same data. This is further described in [HTTP-RETRY]. Data of the same data. This is further described in [HTTP-RETRY]. Data
sent during 0-RTT resumption also cannot benefit from perfect forward sent during 0-RTT resumption also cannot benefit from perfect forward
secrecy (PFS). secrecy (PFS).
Data in the first flight sent by the client in a connection Data in the first flight sent by the client in a connection
established with 0-RTT MUST be idempotent. Applications MUST be established with 0-RTT MUST be idempotent (as specified in section
designed, and their data MUST be framed, such that multiple reception 3.2 in [QUIC-TLS]). Applications MUST be designed, and their data
of idempotent data is recognized as such by the receiverApplications MUST be framed, such that multiple reception of idempotent data is
that cannot treat data that may appear in a 0-RTT connection recognized as such by the receiverApplications that cannot treat data
establishment as idempotent MUST NOT use 0-RTT establishment. For that may appear in a 0-RTT connection establishment as idempotent
this reason the QUIC transport SHOULD provide an interface for the MUST NOT use 0-RTT establishment. For this reason the QUIC transport
application to indicate if 0-RTT support is in general desired or a SHOULD provide an interface for the application to indicate if 0-RTT
way to indicate whether data is idempotent, and/or whether PFS is a support is in general desired or a way to indicate whether data is
hard requirement for the application. idempotent, and/or whether PFS is a hard requirement for the
application.
3.3. Session resumption versus Keep-alive 3.3. Session resumption versus Keep-alive
[EDITOR'S NOTE: see https://github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts/issues/6] [EDITOR'S NOTE: see https://github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts/issues/6]
4. Stream versus Flow Multiplexing 4. Use of Streams
QUIC's stream multiplexing feature allows applications to run QUIC's stream multiplexing feature allows applications to run
multiple streams over a single connection, without head-of-line multiple streams over a single connection, without head-of-line
blocking between streams, associated at a point in time with a single blocking between streams, associated at a point in time with a single
five-tuple. Streams are meaningful only to the application; since five-tuple. Stream data is carried within Frames, where one (UDP)
stream information is carried inside QUIC's encryption boundary, no packet on the wired can carry one of multiple stream frames.
Stream can be independently open and closed, gracefully or by error.
If a critical stream for the application is closed, the application
can generate respective error messages on the application layer to
inform the other end or the higher layer and eventually indicate quic
to reset the connection. QUIC, however, does not need to know which
streams are critical, and does not provide an interface to
exceptional handling of any stream. There are special streams in
QUIC that are used for control on the QUIC connection, however, these
streams are not exposed to the apllication.
Mapping of application data to streams is application-specific and
described for HTTP/s in [QUIC-HTTP]. In general data that can be
processed independently, and therefore would suffer from head of line
blocking, if forced to be received in order, should be transmitted
over different streams. If there is a logical grouping of those data
chunks or messages, stream can be reused, or a new stream can be
opened for each chunk/message. However, a QUIC receiver has a
maximum number of concurrently open streams. If the stream limit is
exhausted a sender is able to indicate that more streams are needed,
however, this does not automatically lead to an increase of the
maximum number of streams by the receiver. Therefore it can be
valuable to expose this maximum number to the application, or the
number of currently still available, unused streams, and make the
mapping of data to streams dependent on this information.
Further, streams have a maximum number of bytes that can be sent on
one stream. This number is high enough (2^64) that this will usually
not be reached with current applications. Applications that send
chunks of data over a very long period of time (such as days, months,
or years), should rather utilize the 0-RTT seesion resumption ability
provided by QUIC, than trying to maintain one connection open.
4.1. Stream versus Flow Multiplexing
Streams are meaningful only to the application; since stream
information is carried inside QUIC's encryption boundary, no
information about the stream(s) whose frames are carried by a given information about the stream(s) whose frames are carried by a given
packet is visible to the network. packet is visible to the network. Therefore stream multiplexing is
not intended to be used for differentiating streams in terms of
network treatment. Application traffic requiring different network
treatment SHOULD therefore be carried over different five-tuples
(i.e. multiple QUIC connections). Given QUIC's ability to send
application data in the first RTT of a connection (if a previous
connection to the same host has been successfully established to
provide the respective credentials), the cost for establishing
another connection are extremely low.
Stream multiplexing is not intended to be used for differentiating 4.2. Paketization and latency
streams in terms of network treatment. Application traffic requiring
different network treatment SHOULD therefore be carried over
different five-tuples (i.e. multiple QUIC connections). Given
QUIC's ability to send application data in the first RTT of a
connection (if a previous connection to the same host has been
successfully established to provide the respective credentials), the
cost for establishing another connection are extremely low.
5. Prioritization Quic provides an interface that provides multiple streams to the
application, however, the application usually doesn't have control
how the data transmitted over one stream is mapped into frame and how
frames are bundled into packets. By default QUIC will try to
maximally pack packets to minimize bandwidth consumption and
computational costs with one or multiple same data frames. If not
enough data available to send QUIC may even wait for a short time,
trading of latency and bandwidth effeciency. This time might either
be pre-configured or can the dynamically adjusted based on the
observed sending pattern of the application. If the apllication
requires low latency, with only small chunks of data to send, it may
be valuable to indicate to QUIC that all data should be send out
immediately. Or if a certain sending pattern is know by the
application, it might also provide valuabe to QUIC how long it should
wait to bundle frame into a packet.
4.3. Prioritization
Stream prioritization is not exposed to the network, nor to the Stream prioritization is not exposed to the network, nor to the
receiver. Prioritization can be realized by the sender and the QUIC receiver. Prioritization can be realized by the sender and the QUIC
transport should provide and interface for applications to prioritize transport should provide an interface for applications to prioritize
streams [QUIC]. streams [QUIC]. Further applications can implement their own
prioritization scheme on top of QUIC: an an (application) protocol
that run on top of QUIC can define explict messages for signaling
priority, such as those defined for HTTP/2; it can define rules that
allow an endpoint to determine priority based on context; or it can
provide a higher level interface and leave the determination to the
application on top.
Priority handling of retransmissions may be implemented by the sender Priority handling of retransmissions can be implemented by the sender
in the transport layer and [QUIC] does not specify a specific way how in the transport layer. [QUIC] recommends to retransmit lost data
this must be handled. Currently QUIC only provides fully reliable before new data, unless indicated differently by the application.
stream transmission, and as such prioritization of retransmission is Currently QUIC only provides fully reliable stream transmission, and
likely beneficial. For not fully reliable streams priority as such prioritization of retransmissionis likely beneficial in most
scheduling of retransmissions over data of higher-priority streams cases, as gaps that get filled up and thereby free up flow control.
might not be desired. In this case QUIC could also provide an For not fully reliable streams priority scheduling of retransmissions
interface or derive the prioritization decision from the reliability over data of higher-priority streams might not be desired. In this
level of the stream. case QUIC could also provide an interface or derive the
prioritization decision from the reliability level of the stream.
6. Graceful connection closure 5. Graceful connection closure
[EDITOR'S NOTE: give some guidance here about the steps an [EDITOR'S NOTE: give some guidance here about the steps an
application should take; however this is still work in progress] application should take; however this is still work in progress]
7. Information exposure and the Connection ID 6. Information exposure and the Connection ID
QUIC exposes some information to the network in the unencrypted part QUIC exposes some information to the network in the unencrypted part
of the header, either before the encryption context is established, of the header, either before the encryption context is established,
because the information is intended to be used by the network. QUIC because the information is intended to be used by the network. QUIC
has a long header that is used during connection establishment and has a long header that is used during connection establishment and
for other control processes, and a short header that may be used for for other control processes, and a short header that may be used for
data transmission in an established connection. While the long data transmission in an established connection. While the long
header is fixed and exposes some information, the short header only header is fixed and exposes some information, the short header only
exposes the packet number by default and may optionally expose a exposes the packet number by default and may optionally expose a
connection ID. connection ID.
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 27
Given that exposing this information may make it possible to Given that exposing this information may make it possible to
associate multiple addresses with a single client during rebinding, associate multiple addresses with a single client during rebinding,
which has privacy implications, an application may indicate to not which has privacy implications, an application may indicate to not
support exposure of certain information after the handshake. support exposure of certain information after the handshake.
Specificially, an application that has additional information that Specificially, an application that has additional information that
the client is not behind a NAT and the server is not behind a load the client is not behind a NAT and the server is not behind a load
balancer, and therefore it is unlikely that the addresses will be re- balancer, and therefore it is unlikely that the addresses will be re-
bound, may indicate to the transport that is wishes to not expose a bound, may indicate to the transport that is wishes to not expose a
connection ID. connection ID.
7.1. Server-Generated Connection ID 6.1. Server-Generated Connection ID
QUIC supports a server-generated Connection ID, transmitted to the QUIC supports a server-generated Connection ID, transmitted to the
client during connection establishment: see Section 5.7 of [QUIC] client during connection establishment: see Section 5.7 of [QUIC]
Servers behind load balancers should propose a Connection ID during Servers behind load balancers should propose a Connection ID during
the handshake, encoding the identity of the server or information the handshake, encoding the identity of the server or information
about its load balancing pool, in order to support stateless load about its load balancing pool, in order to support stateless load
balancing. Once the server generates a Connection ID that encodes balancing. Once the server generates a Connection ID that encodes
its identity, every CDN load balancer would be able to forward the its identity, every CDN load balancer would be able to forward the
packets to that server without needing information about every packets to that server without needing information about every
specific flow it is forwarding. specific flow it is forwarding.
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
servers, if the data-center's load balancing system keeps "local" servers, if the data-center's load balancing system keeps "local"
state of all flows itself. Care must be exercised to ensure that the state of all flows itself. Care must be exercised to ensure that the
information encoded in the Connection ID is not sufficient to information encoded in the Connection ID is not sufficient to
identify unique end users. Note that by encoding routing information identify unique end users. Note that by encoding routing information
in the Connection ID, load balancers open up a new attack vector that in the Connection ID, load balancers open up a new attack vector that
allows bad actors to direct traffic at a specific backend server or allows bad actors to direct traffic at a specific backend server or
pool. It is therefore recommended that Server-Generated Connection pool. It is therefore recommended that Server-Generated Connection
ID includes a cryptographic MAC that the load balancer pool server ID includes a cryptographic MAC that the load balancer pool server
are able to identify and discard packets featuring an invalid MAC. are able to identify and discard packets featuring an invalid MAC.
8. Using Server Retry for Redirection 6.2. Using Server Retry for Redirection
QUIC provide a Server Retry packet that can be send by a server in QUIC provide a Server Retry packet that can be send by a server in
response to the Client Initial packet. The server may choose a new response to the Client Initial packet. The server may choose a new
connection ID in that packet and the client will retry by sending connection ID in that packet and the client will retry by sending
another Client Initial packet with the server-selected connection ID. another Client Initial packet with the server-selected connection ID.
This mechanism can be used to redirect a connection to a different This mechanism can be used to redirect a connection to a different
server, e.g. due to performance reasons or when servers in a server server, e.g. due to performance reasons or when servers in a server
pool are upgraded gradually, and therefore may support different pool are upgraded gradually, and therefore may support different
versions of QUIC. In this case, it is assumed that all servers versions of QUIC. In this case, it is assumed that all servers
belonging to a certain pool are served in cooperation with load belonging to a certain pool are served in cooperation with load
balancers that forward the traffic based on the connection ID. A balancers that forward the traffic based on the connection ID. A
server can chose the connection ID in the Server Retry packet such server can chose the connection ID in the Server Retry packet such
that the load balancer will redirect the next Client Initial packet that the load balancer will redirect the next Client Initial packet
to a different server in that pool. to a different server in that pool.
9. Use of Versions and Cryptographic Handshake 7. Use of Versions and Cryptographic Handshake
Versioning in QUIC may change the the protocol's behavior completely, Versioning in QUIC may change the the protocol's behavior completely,
except for the meaning of a few header fields that have been declared except for the meaning of a few header fields that have been declared
to be fixed. As such version of QUIC with a higher version number to be fixed. As such version of QUIC with a higher version number
does not necessarily provide a better service, but might simply does not necessarily provide a better service, but might simply
provide a very different service, so an application needs to be able provide a very different service, so an application needs to be able
to select which versions of QUIC it wants to use. to select which versions of QUIC it wants to use.
A new version could use an encryption scheme other than TLS 1.3 or A new version could use an encryption scheme other than TLS 1.3 or
higher. [QUIC] specifies requirements for the cryptographic higher. [QUIC] specifies requirements for the cryptographic
handshake as currently realized by TLS 1.3 and described in a handshake as currently realized by TLS 1.3 and described in a
separate specification [QUIC-TLS]. This split is performed to enable separate specification [QUIC-TLS]. This split is performed to enable
light-weight versioning with different cryptographic handshakes. light-weight versioning with different cryptographic handshakes.
10. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
11. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
See the security considerations in [QUIC] and [QUIC-TLS]; the See the security considerations in [QUIC] and [QUIC-TLS]; the
security considerations for the underlying transport protocol are security considerations for the underlying transport protocol are
relevant for applications using QUIC, as well. relevant for applications using QUIC, as well.
Application developers should note that any fallback they use when Application developers should note that any fallback they use when
QUIC cannot be used due to network blocking of UDP SHOULD guarantee QUIC cannot be used due to network blocking of UDP SHOULD guarantee
the same security properties as QUIC; if this is not possible, the the same security properties as QUIC; if this is not possible, the
connection SHOULD fail to allow the application to explicitly handle connection SHOULD fail to allow the application to explicitly handle
fallback to a less-secure alternative. See Section 2. fallback to a less-secure alternative. See Section 2.
12. Contributors 10. Contributors
Igor Lubashev contributed text to Section 7 on server-selected Igor Lubashev contributed text to Section 6 on server-selected
connection IDs. connection IDs.
13. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
This work is partially supported by the European Commission under This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture
for a Middleboxed Internet (MAMI), and by the Swiss State Secretariat for a Middleboxed Internet (MAMI), and by the Swiss State Secretariat
for Education, Research, and Innovation under contract no. 15.0268. for Education, Research, and Innovation under contract no. 15.0268.
This support does not imply endorsement. This support does not imply endorsement.
14. References 12. References
14.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[QUIC] Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed [QUIC] Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-04 (work and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-07 (work
in progress), June 2017. in progress), October 2017.
[QUIC-TLS] [QUIC-TLS]
Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using Transport Layer Security Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using Transport Layer Security
(TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-tls-04 (work in (TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-tls-07 (work in
progress), June 2017. progress), October 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. rfc2119>.
[TLS13] Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using Transport Layer Security [TLS13] Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using Transport Layer Security
(TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-tls-04 (work in (TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-tls-07 (work in
progress), June 2017. progress), October 2017.
14.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[Edeline16] [Edeline16]
Edeline, K., Kuehlewind, M., Trammell, B., Aben, E., and Edeline, K., Kuehlewind, M., Trammell, B., Aben, E., and
B. Donnet, "Using UDP for Internet Transport Evolution B. Donnet, "Using UDP for Internet Transport Evolution
(arXiv preprint 1612.07816)", December 2016, (arXiv preprint 1612.07816)", December 2016,
<https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07816>. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07816>.
[HTTP-RETRY] [HTTP-RETRY]
Nottingham, M., "Retrying HTTP Requests", draft- Nottingham, M., "Retrying HTTP Requests", draft-
nottingham-httpbis-retry-01 (work in progress), February nottingham-httpbis-retry-01 (work in progress), February
skipping to change at page 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
2017. 2017.
[PaaschNanog] [PaaschNanog]
Paasch, C., "Network Support for TCP Fast Open (NANOG 67 Paasch, C., "Network Support for TCP Fast Open (NANOG 67
presentation)", June 2016, presentation)", June 2016,
<https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/ <https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/
Paasch_Network_Support.pdf>. Paasch_Network_Support.pdf>.
[QUIC-HTTP] [QUIC-HTTP]
Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) over Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) over
QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-http-04 (work in progress), June QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-http-07 (work in progress), October
2017. 2017.
[Swett16] Swett, I., "QUIC Deployment Experience at Google (IETF96 [Swett16] Swett, I., "QUIC Deployment Experience at Google (IETF96
QUIC BoF presentation)", July 2016, QUIC BoF presentation)", July 2016,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96- <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-
quic-3.pdf>. quic-3.pdf>.
[Trammell16] [Trammell16]
Trammell, B. and M. Kuehlewind, "Internet Path Trammell, B. and M. Kuehlewind, "Internet Path
Transparency Measurements using RIPE Atlas (RIPE72 MAT Transparency Measurements using RIPE Atlas (RIPE72 MAT
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
74 lines changed or deleted 138 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/