Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections
draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-11-04
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: May 6, 2020                                              Orange
                                                       G. Fairhurst, Ed.
                                                  University of Aberdeen
                                                        November 3, 2019

               Transport parameters for 0-RTT connections
                      draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp-04

Abstract

   The time-to-service duration depends on both peers exchange
   optimization.  The peer initiating the connection may not be the one
   which send data first.  Moreover, clients may be resource-limited,
   behind a low bandwidth or connected to a long-RTT network and may
   need to adapt dynamically to improve data reception.  Currently, each
   side has its proprietary solution to measure and to store path
   characteristics.  Having a standard way to share these parameters
   should improve the adaptation to a non standard path characteristics.

   QUIC v1 specification already reflects this approach.  Having a
   symmetrical control of the optimization should reduce protocol
   ossification.  This memo proposes the sharing of the characteristics
   of the path amongst the peer to reduce HTTP3 time-to-service for non
   default transport situation.

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 May 6, 2020.

Kuhn, et al.               Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Transport for 0-RTT             November 2019

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  . . . .   4
   2.  Differences between 1-RTT and 0-RTT QUIC connections
       establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  An end-to-end Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Description of the BDP metadata extension . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Usage of the extension in the NewSessionTicket  . . . . .   6
   4.  Best current practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  What happens when BDP is used incorrectly?  . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Relevance of the solution for QUIC and other protocols  . . .   9
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Some network paths experience an increased time-to-service because
   the default parameters controlling the initialization of the
   transport and congestion control are not well-suited to the path
   characteristics.  QUIC's default congestion control is based on TCP
   NewReno [I-D.ietf-quic-recovery] and the recommended initial window
   is defined by [RFC6928].  A path with a large bandwidth delay product
   can therefore significantly increase the time-to-service (e.g. a path
   using satellite communication [IJSCN19] could observe a much longer
   page load time for complex pages).  The 0-RTT mechanism is designed
   to accelerate the throughput when reconnecting to a peer where it has
Show full document text