Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections
draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                             N. Kuhn, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                      CNES
Intended status: Informational                           E. Stephan, Ed.
Expires: January 9, 2020                                          Orange
                                                       G. Fairhurst, Ed.
                                                  University of Aberdeen
                                                            July 8, 2019

               Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections
                      draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp-03

Abstract

   The time-to-service duration depends on both peers and the peer
   initiating the connection may not be the peer actually sending data.
   Moreover, clients may be resource-limited, behind a low bandwidth or
   a long-RTT network and may need adaptations to improve data
   transmission or reception.  While each client and server can have its
   dedicated solution to store path parameters, having a standard way of
   exchanging this information helps in providing symmetrical control of
   the optimisation and reducing protocol ossification.  QUIC may not be
   limited to HTTP3: it can be used as a substrate for proxying and
   tunneling.

   This memo discusses a solution where the client is informed about
   path parameters: both the client and the server can contribute to the
   reduction of the time-to-service for subsequent connections.  This
   would improve symmetrical transmission of data and reduce
   ossification of the protocol.  To improve the time-to-service of
   subsequent 0-RTT reconnection the server currently sets in the
   early_data extension the maximum volume of egress data the client is
   allowed to send when reconnecting.  This memo proposes BDP_metadata,
   an additional extension, to also inform the client about path
   parameters.

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

Kuhn, et al.             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Transport for 0-RTT                 July 2019

   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 January 9, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Reducing ossification with the proposed solution  . . . .   3
   2.  Differences between 1-RTT and 0-RTT QUIC connections
       establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  End-to-end solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Description of the BDP metadata extension . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Usage of the extension in the NewSessionTicket  . . . . .   5
   4.  Best current practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  What happens when BDP is used incorrectly?  . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Some network paths result in an increased time-to-service because the
   default parameters controlling the initialization of the transport
   and congestion control are not suitable for the path characteristics.
   QUIC's congestion control is based on TCP NewReno
Show full document text