More seriously, this isn't the right group to be standardizing this sort of thing. Maybe this new congestion control working group might, but this isn't specific to QUIC. If there were a need for an extension of some sort in QUIC (there isn't, Section 9 explains why), then maybe we could take that work on once the other work is more mature.
Otherwise, I don't think that the document is quite ready. The split is appreciated, but I'm seeing a lot of troubling indications. Just from a quick skim, this is what I see: * The design is asymmetric. Lots of talk about servers being the ones to apply this logic, but none about clients. * The actual logic beyond the four high-level states (these are fine) is extraordinarily vague. * The way in which topology changes are detected is unlikely to be good; better heuristics are needed. I'm not saying that people can't do what is suggested. The overall structure of what is being suggested here is good. I just think that it is isn't ready to take this step. And if it does, the QUIC WG isn't where it should be stepping. On Tue, Jul 12, 2022, at 11:29, Lucas Pardue wrote: > Hello QUIC WG, > > This is an adoption call for draft-kuhn-quic-careful-resume [1]. From > the abstract: > > This document discusses careful resumption of congestion control > parameters in QUIC with a cautious method that enables faster startup > of new connections. > > This is an Informational document that explores the notion of "being > cautious when using previous values on a new path" set out in RFC 9000 > [2]. > > Prior to IETF 113, the authors created draft-kuhn-quic-careful-resume > by splitting out the common problem space, considerations (including > safety) and possible solutions, from a proposed technical design[3]. > The presentation at IETF 113 [4] [5] gave us more detail on > draft-kuhn-quic-careful-resume. > > The chairs would like to establish if there is interest in adopting the > careful resumption work in the QUIC WG. The call will run for 2 weeks, > ending on July 25 2022 at 23:59 anywhere on earth[6]. Please respond to > this email thread with any comments indicating support or objection. In > either case, elucidation of your opinion would be appreciated. > > Kind regards > Lucas & Matt > QUIC WG Chairs > > > [1] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuhn-quic-careful-resume/ > [2] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000.html#section-9.4-2 > [3] - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp-11.html > [4] - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-quic-0rtt-bdp-00 > [5] - https://youtu.be/yHyv7ay6mIk?t=6850 > [6] - https://time.is/Anywhere_on_Earth
