draft-ietf-quic-applicability-01.txt   draft-ietf-quic-applicability-02.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: April 28, 2018 October 25, 2017 Expires: January 3, 2019 July 02, 2018
Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol
draft-ietf-quic-applicability-01 draft-ietf-quic-applicability-02
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 April 28, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
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. Use of Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Use of Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Stream versus Flow Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Stream versus Flow Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Paketization and latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Packetization and latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Graceful connection closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Graceful connection closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Information exposure and the Connection ID . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Information exposure and the Connection ID . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Server-Generated Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Server-Generated Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Using Server Retry for Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Using Server Retry for Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Use of Versions and Cryptographic Handshake . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Use of Versions and Cryptographic Handshake . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
skipping to change at page 3, line 42 skipping to change at page 3, line 42
can be requested by the connection initiator but might no be can be requested by the connection initiator but might no be
supported by the far end or could be blocked on the network path. supported by the far end or could be blocked on the network path.
Note that there is some evidence of middleboxes blocking SYN data Note that there is some evidence of middleboxes blocking SYN data
even if TFO was successfully negotiated (see [PaaschNanog]). even if TFO was successfully negotiated (see [PaaschNanog]).
Any fallback mechanism is likely to impose a degradation of Any fallback mechanism is likely to impose a degradation of
performance; however, fallback MUST not silently violate the performance; however, fallback MUST not silently violate the
application's expectation of confidentiality or integrity of its application's expectation of confidentiality or integrity of its
payload data. payload data.
Moreover, while encryption (in this case TLS) is inseparable Moreover, while encryption (in this case TLS) is inseparably
integrated with QUIC, TLS negotiation over TCP can be blocked. In integrated with QUIC, TLS negotiation over TCP can be blocked. In
case it is RECOMMENDED to abort the connection, allowing the case it is RECOMMENDED to abort the connection, allowing the
application to present a suitable prompt to the user that secure application to present a suitable prompt to the user that secure
communication is unavailable. communication is unavailable.
3. Zero RTT 3. Zero RTT
QUIC provides for 0-RTT connection establishment (see section 3.2 of QUIC provides for 0-RTT connection establishment (see section 3.2 of
[QUIC]). This presents opportunities and challenges for applications [QUIC]). This presents opportunities and challenges for applications
using QUIC. using QUIC.
3.1. Thinking in Zero RTT 3.1. Thinking in Zero RTT
A transport protocol that provides 0-RTT connection establishment to A transport protocol that provides 0-RTT connection establishment to
recently contacted servers is qualitatively different than one that recently contacted servers is qualitatively different than one that
does not from the point of view of the application using it. does not from the point of view of the application using it.
Relative tradeoffs between the cost of closing and reopening a Relative trade-offs between the cost of closing and reopening a
connection and trying to keep it open are different; see Section 3.3. connection and trying to keep it open are different; see Section 3.3.
Applications must be slightly rethought in order to make best use of Applications must be slightly rethought in order to make best use of
0-RTT resumption. Most importantly, application operations must be 0-RTT resumption. Most importantly, application operations must be
divided into idempotent and non-idempotent operations, as only divided into idempotent and non-idempotent operations, as only
idempotent operations may appear in 0-RTT packets. This implies that idempotent operations may appear in 0-RTT packets. This implies that
the interface between the application and transport layer exposes the interface between the application and transport layer exposes
idempotence either ecplicitly or implicitly. idempotence either explicitly or implicitly.
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 50 skipping to change at page 4, line 50
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. Use of Streams 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. Stream data is carried within Frames, where one (UDP) five-tuple. Stream data is carried within Frames, where one (UDP)
packet on the wired can carry one of multiple stream frames. packet on the wire can carry one of multiple stream frames.
Stream can be independently open and closed, gracefully or by error. Stream can be independently open and closed, gracefully or by error.
If a critical stream for the application is closed, the application If a critical stream for the application is closed, the application
can generate respective error messages on the application layer to can generate respective error messages on the application layer to
inform the other end or the higher layer and eventually indicate quic inform the other end or the higher layer and eventually indicate quic
to reset the connection. QUIC, however, does not need to know which to reset the connection. QUIC, however, does not need to know which
streams are critical, and does not provide an interface to streams are critical, and does not provide an interface to
exceptional handling of any stream. There are special streams in exceptional handling of any stream. There are special streams in
QUIC that are used for control on the QUIC connection, however, these QUIC that are used for control on the QUIC connection, however, these
streams are not exposed to the apllication. streams are not exposed to the application.
Mapping of application data to streams is application-specific and Mapping of application data to streams is application-specific and
described for HTTP/s in [QUIC-HTTP]. In general data that can be described for HTTP/s in [QUIC-HTTP]. In general data that can be
processed independently, and therefore would suffer from head of line processed independently, and therefore would suffer from head of line
blocking, if forced to be received in order, should be transmitted blocking, if forced to be received in order, should be transmitted
over different streams. If there is a logical grouping of those data 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 chunks or messages, stream can be reused, or a new stream can be
opened for each chunk/message. However, a QUIC receiver has a opened for each chunk/message. If a QUIC receiver has maximum
maximum number of concurrently open streams. If the stream limit is allowed concurrent streams open and the sender on the other end
exhausted a sender is able to indicate that more streams are needed, indicates that more streams are needed, it doesn't automatically lead
however, this does not automatically lead to an increase of the to an increase of the maximum number of streams by the receiver.
maximum number of streams by the receiver. Therefore it can be Therefore it can be valuable to expose maximum number of allowed,
valuable to expose this maximum number to the application, or the currently open and currently used streams to the application to make
number of currently still available, unused streams, and make the the mapping of data to streams dependent on this information.
mapping of data to streams dependent on this information.
Further, streams have a maximum number of bytes that can be sent on 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 one stream. This number is high enough (2^64) that this will usually
not be reached with current applications. Applications that send not be reached with current applications. Applications that send
chunks of data over a very long period of time (such as days, months, 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 or years), should rather utilize the 0-RTT session resumption ability
provided by QUIC, than trying to maintain one connection open. provided by QUIC, than trying to maintain one connection open.
4.1. Stream versus Flow Multiplexing 4.1. Stream versus Flow Multiplexing
Streams are meaningful only to the application; since stream Streams are meaningful only to the application; since stream
information is carried inside QUIC's encryption boundary, no 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. Therefore stream multiplexing is packet is visible to the network. Therefore stream multiplexing is
not intended to be used for differentiating streams in terms of not intended to be used for differentiating streams in terms of
network treatment. Application traffic requiring different network network treatment. Application traffic requiring different network
treatment SHOULD therefore be carried over different five-tuples treatment SHOULD therefore be carried over different five-tuples
(i.e. multiple QUIC connections). Given QUIC's ability to send (i.e. multiple QUIC connections). Given QUIC's ability to send
application data in the first RTT of a connection (if a previous application data in the first RTT of a connection (if a previous
connection to the same host has been successfully established to connection to the same host has been successfully established to
provide the respective credentials), the cost for establishing provide the respective credentials), the cost for establishing
another connection are extremely low. another connection are extremely low.
4.2. Paketization and latency 4.2. Packetization and latency
Quic provides an interface that provides multiple streams to the Quic provides an interface that provides multiple streams to the
application, however, the application usually doesn't have control application, however, the application usually doesn't have control
how the data transmitted over one stream is mapped into frame and how how the data transmitted over one stream is mapped into frame and how
frames are bundled into packets. By default QUIC will try to frames are bundled into packets. By default QUIC will try to
maximally pack packets to minimize bandwidth consumption and maximally pack packets to minimize bandwidth consumption and
computational costs with one or multiple same data frames. If not computational costs with one or multiple same data frames. If not
enough data available to send QUIC may even wait for a short time, enough data available to send QUIC may even wait for a short time,
trading of latency and bandwidth effeciency. This time might either trading of latency and bandwidth efficiency. This time might either
be pre-configured or can the dynamically adjusted based on the be pre-configured or can the dynamically adjusted based on the
observed sending pattern of the application. If the apllication observed sending pattern of the application. If the application
requires low latency, with only small chunks of data to send, it may 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 be valuable to indicate to QUIC that all data should be send out
immediately. Or if a certain sending pattern is know by the immediately. Or if a certain sending pattern is know by the
application, it might also provide valuabe to QUIC how long it should application, it might also provide valuable guidance to QUIC how long
wait to bundle frame into a packet. it should wait to bundle frame into a packet.
4.3. Prioritization 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 an interface for applications to prioritize transport should provide an interface for applications to prioritize
streams [QUIC]. Further applications can implement their own streams [QUIC]. Further applications can implement their own
prioritization scheme on top of QUIC: an an (application) protocol prioritization scheme on top of QUIC: (an application) protocol that
that run on top of QUIC can define explict messages for signaling runs on top of QUIC can define explicit messages for signaling
priority, such as those defined for HTTP/2; it can define rules that 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 allow an endpoint to determine priority based on context; or it can
provide a higher level interface and leave the determination to the provide a higher level interface and leave the determination to the
application on top. application on top.
Priority handling of retransmissions can be implemented by the sender Priority handling of retransmissions can be implemented by the sender
in the transport layer. [QUIC] recommends to retransmit lost data in the transport layer. [QUIC] recommends to retransmit lost data
before new data, unless indicated differently by the application. before new data, unless indicated differently by the application.
Currently QUIC only provides fully reliable stream transmission, and Currently QUIC only provides fully reliable stream transmission, and
as such prioritization of retransmissionis likely beneficial in most as such prioritization of retransmissions likely beneficial in most
cases, as gaps that get filled up and thereby free up flow control. cases, as gaps that get filled up and thereby free up flow control.
For not fully reliable streams priority scheduling of retransmissions For not fully reliable streams priority scheduling of retransmissions
over data of higher-priority streams might not be desired. In this over data of higher-priority streams might not be desired. In this
case QUIC could also provide an interface or derive the case QUIC could also provide an interface or derive the
prioritization decision from the reliability level of the stream. prioritization decision from the reliability level of the stream.
5. 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]
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
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.
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 Specifically, an application that has additional information that the
the client is not behind a NAT and the server is not behind a load 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.
6.1. 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.
Server-generated Connection IDs must not encode any information other Server-generated Connection IDs must not encode any information other
that that needed to route packets to the appropriate backend that that needed to route packets to the appropriate backend
server(s): typically the identity of the backend server or pool of server(s): typically the identity of the backend server or pool of
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 is
are able to identify and discard packets featuring an invalid MAC. able to identify and discard packets featuring an invalid MAC.
6.2. 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 provides a Server Retry packet that can be sent 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.
7. 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 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 23 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
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.
12. References 12. References
12.1. 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-07 (work and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-13 (work
in progress), October 2017. in progress), June 2018.
[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-07 (work in (TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-tls-13 (work in
progress), October 2017. progress), June 2018.
[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, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ RFC2119, March 1997, <https://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-07 (work in (TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-tls-13 (work in
progress), October 2017. progress), June 2018.
12.2. 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]
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 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-07 (work in progress), October QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-http-13 (work in progress), June
2017. 2018.
[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
presentation)", May 2016, <https://ripe72.ripe.net/wp- presentation)", May 2016, <https://ripe72.ripe.net/wp-
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
42 lines changed or deleted 41 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/