Stream Namespaces for QUIC
draft-vvv-quic-namespaces-00

QUIC Working Group                                           V. Vasiliev
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Informational                          21 February 2024
Expires: 24 August 2024

                       Stream Namespaces for QUIC
                      draft-vvv-quic-namespaces-00

Abstract

   QUIC Stream Namespaces provide an extension to the QUIC protocol that
   enables multiplexing multiple logical groups of streams within the
   same connection, while providing flow control isolation.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vvv-quic-namespaces/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the quic Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:quic@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://example.com/WG.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/https://github.com/vasilvv/draft-vvv-quic-
   namespaces.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 August 2024.

Vasiliev                 Expires 24 August 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Stream Namespaces for QUIC          February 2024

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  NS frame  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.2.  CLOSE_NAMESPACE frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   QUIC [RFC9000] provides an ordered bytestream abstraction called
   streams.  Streams are subject to various flow control mechanisms that
   allow a network endpoint to control how much resources a peer is
   allowed to consume.  Some of the flow control mechanisms are scoped
   to a single stream; others are global to the entire connection.  The
   connection-level flow control mechanisms are a good fit in cases when
   all of the streams originate from the same entity; however, in cases
   when multiple logical entities share the same connection, a single
   global limit may lead to one entity starving another.  This document
   provides a mechanism by which a single QUIC connection can have
   multiple namespaces, each with its own resource limits for streams.

Vasiliev                 Expires 24 August 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Stream Namespaces for QUIC          February 2024

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Namespaces

   A QUIC namespace is a 62-bit unique ID number.  In the initial state,
   every namespace ID is assumed to exist, but have a MAX_STREAMS number
   associated with it set to 0 for all types of streams, and a MAX_DATA
   value of 0 in both directions.  A peer opens a namespace by sending a
   combination of MAX_DATA and MAX_STREAMS frames for that namespace.
   The recepient may response with either its own MAX_DATA and
   MAX_STREAMS, confirming the response, or it may close the namespace.
   Frames that do not have a namespace ID associated with them are said
   to be a part of _the default namespace_.

   Note that there is no way to set a namespace-specific
   initial_max_stream_data parameters; those remain connection-global.

4.  Frames

4.1.  NS frame

   An NS frame (frame type=0x29c5) is a frame that alters the meaning of
   the frame that comes immediately after it.  If the subsequent frame
   has a stream ID in it, that ID refers to the stream with the
   corresponding ID in the specified namespace.  If the subsequent frame
   alters connection-global flow control limits, those limits are
   altered for the namespace in question, instead of the default
   namespace.

   NS Frame {
     Type (i) = 0x29c5,
     Namespace ID (i),
   }

                         Figure 1: NS Frame Format

   The following frames are allowed to follow the NS frame: STREAM,
   RESET_STREAM, STOP_SENDING, MAX_DATA, MAX_STREAM_DATA, MAX_STREAMS,
   DATA_BLOCKED, STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED, STREAMS_BLOCKED.  Extensions that
   define their own frames can define their own semantics of interacting
   with namespaces.  If a frame that is not listed above and does not
   have extension semantics defined for it is prefixed with an NS frame,

Vasiliev                 Expires 24 August 2024                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         Stream Namespaces for QUIC          February 2024

   the recepient MUST close the connection with a PROTOCOL_VIOLATION
   error code.  Same applies to an NS frame that is not followed by
   anything.

   Note that this intentionally does not define NS prefix for the
   DATAGRAM frames [RFC9221], as datagrams already have pre-defined
   mechanisms for multiplexing (such as [RFC9297]) that may conflict
   with QUIC stream namespaces, and there is no technical advantage of
   using an NS frame with datagrams over doing multiplexing within the
   datagram payload.

4.2.  CLOSE_NAMESPACE frame

   A CLOSE_NAMESPACE frame indicates to the peer that the sender will
   not process any further data received for a given namespace.  The
   sender can discard all of the state related to the namespace after
   sending this frame.

   CLOSE_NAMESPACE Frame {
     Type (i) = 0x29c6,
     Namespace ID (i),
   }

                   Figure 2: CLOSE_NAMESPACE Frame Format

5.  Security Considerations

   TODO Security

   TODO: discuss the issue where the peer has to remember flow control
   limits for arbitrary unexpected namespaces.

6.  IANA Considerations

   TODO: add a transport parameter to negotiate this feature.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

Vasiliev                 Expires 24 August 2024                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         Stream Namespaces for QUIC          February 2024

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.

   [RFC9221]  Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
              Datagram Extension to QUIC", RFC 9221,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9221, March 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9221>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC9297]  Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "HTTP Datagrams and the
              Capsule Protocol", RFC 9297, DOI 10.17487/RFC9297, August
              2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9297>.

Acknowledgments

   TODO acknowledge.

Author's Address

   Victor Vasiliev
   Google
   Email: vasilvv@google.com

Vasiliev                 Expires 24 August 2024                 [Page 5]