draft-ietf-quic-applicability-05.txt   draft-ietf-quic-applicability-06.txt 
Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational B. Trammell Intended status: Informational B. Trammell
Expires: January 6, 2020 Google Expires: 9 July 2020 Google
July 05, 2019 6 January 2020
Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol
draft-ietf-quic-applicability-05 draft-ietf-quic-applicability-06
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 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 6, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 July 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Zero RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Session resumption versus Keep-alive . . . . . . . . . . 5
skipping to change at page 5, line 17 skipping to change at page 5, line 17
Because QUIC is encapsulated in UDP, applications using QUIC must Because QUIC is encapsulated in UDP, applications using QUIC must
deal with short idle timeouts. Deployed stateful middleboxes will deal with short idle timeouts. Deployed stateful middleboxes will
generally establish state for UDP flows on the first packet state, generally establish state for UDP flows on the first packet state,
and keep state for much shorter idle periods than for TCP. According and keep state for much shorter idle periods than for TCP. According
to a 2010 study ([Hatonen10]), UDP applications can assume that any to a 2010 study ([Hatonen10]), UDP applications can assume that any
NAT binding or other state entry will be expired after just thirty NAT binding or other state entry will be expired after just thirty
seconds of inactivity. seconds of inactivity.
A QUIC application has three strategies to deal with this issue: A QUIC application has three strategies to deal with this issue:
o Ignore it, if the application-layer protocol consists only of * Ignore it, if the application-layer protocol consists only of
interactions with no or very short idle periods. interactions with no or very short idle periods.
o Ensure there are no long idle periods. * Ensure there are no long idle periods.
o Resume the session after a long idle period, using 0-RTT * Resume the session after a long idle period, using 0-RTT
resumption when appropriate. resumption when appropriate.
The first strategy is the easiest, but it only applies to certain The first strategy is the easiest, but it only applies to certain
applications. applications.
Either the server or the client in a QUIC application can send PING Either the server or the client in a QUIC application can send PING
frames as keep-alives, to prevent the connection and any on-path frames as keep-alives, to prevent the connection and any on-path
state from timing out. Recommendations for the use of keep-alives state from timing out. Recommendations for the use of keep-alives
are application specific, mainly depending on the latency are application specific, mainly depending on the latency
requirements and message frequency of the application. In this case, requirements and message frequency of the application. In this case,
skipping to change at page 7, line 14 skipping to change at page 7, line 14
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 of establishing another provide the respective credentials), the cost of establishing another
connection is extremely low. connection is extremely low.
4.2. Prioritization 4.2. Prioritization
Stream prioritization is not exposed to either the network or the Stream prioritization is not exposed to either the network or the
receiver. Prioritization is managed by the sender, and the QUIC receiver. Prioritization is managed by the sender, and the QUIC
transport should provide an interface for applications to prioritize transport should provide an interface for applications to prioritize
skipping to change at page 14, line 45 skipping to change at page 14, line 45
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.
16. References 16. References
16.1. Normative References 16.1. 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-20 (work and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
in progress), April 2019. draft-ietf-quic-transport-24, 3 November 2019,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-
transport-24.txt>.
[QUIC-INVARIANTS] [QUIC-INVARIANTS]
Thomson, M., "Version-Independent Properties of QUIC", Thomson, M., "Version-Independent Properties of QUIC",
draft-ietf-quic-invariants-04 (work in progress), April Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-
2019. invariants-07, 11 September 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-invariants-07.txt>.
[QUIC-TLS] [QUIC-TLS] Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC",
Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-tls-24,
draft-ietf-quic-tls-20 (work in progress), April 2019. 3 November 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-quic-tls-24.txt>.
[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/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. [RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011, RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[TLS13] Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC", [TLS13] Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC",
draft-ietf-quic-tls-20 (work in progress), April 2019. Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-tls-24,
3 November 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-quic-tls-24.txt>.
16.2. Informative References 16.2. 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)", 22 December 2016,
<https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07816>. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07816>.
[Hatonen10] [Hatonen10]
Hatonen, S., Nyrhinen, A., Eggert, L., Strowes, S., Hatonen, S., Nyrhinen, A., Eggert, L., Strowes, S.,
Sarolahti, P., and M. Kojo, "An experimental study of home Sarolahti, P., and M. Kojo, "An experimental study of home
gateway characteristics (Proc. ACM IMC 2010)", October gateway characteristics (Proc. ACM IMC 2010)", October
2010. 2010.
[HTTP-RETRY] [HTTP-RETRY]
Nottingham, M., "Retrying HTTP Requests", draft- Nottingham, M., "Retrying HTTP Requests", Work in
nottingham-httpbis-retry-01 (work in progress), February Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-
2017. 01, 1 February 2017, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-01.txt>.
[I-D.nottingham-httpbis-retry] [I-D.nottingham-httpbis-retry]
Nottingham, M., "Retrying HTTP Requests", draft- Nottingham, M., "Retrying HTTP Requests", Work in
nottingham-httpbis-retry-01 (work in progress), February Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-
2017. 01, 1 February 2017, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-01.txt>.
[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)", 13 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 Version 3 Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-20 (work in progress), (HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
April 2019. quic-http-24, 4 November 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-http-24.txt>.
[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)", 20 July 2016,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/ <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-
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)", 25 May 2016, <https://ripe72.ripe.net/wp-
content/uploads/presentations/86-atlas-udpdiff.pdf>. content/uploads/presentations/86-atlas-udpdiff.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mirja Kuehlewind Mirja Kuehlewind
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com
Brian Trammell Brian Trammell
Google Google
Gustav-Gull-Platz 1 Gustav-Gull-Platz 1
8004 Zurich CH- 8004 Zurich
Switzerland Switzerland
Email: ietf@trammell.ch Email: ietf@trammell.ch
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
40 lines changed or deleted 48 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/