One Way Latency Considerations for Multipath in QUIC
draft-chan-quic-owl-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-13
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf xml html 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)
QUIC                                                             H. Chan
Internet-Draft                                                    A. Wei
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 14, 2017                                      F. Song
                                                                H. Zhang
                                             Beijing Jiaotong University
                                                          March 13, 2017

          One Way Latency Considerations for Multipath in QUIC
                         draft-chan-quic-owl-01

Abstract

   This document discusses the use of One Way Latency (OWL) for
   enhancing multipath transmission in QUIC.  Several representative
   usages of OWL, such as congestion control mechanism, retransmission
   policy, crucial data scheduling are analyzed.  Two kinds of OWL
   measurement approaches are also provided and compared.  More
   explorations related with OWL will be researched to improve the
   performance of QUIC.

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 http://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 September 14, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Chan, et al.           Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  OWL Considerations for Multipath in QUIC      March 2017

   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
   2.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Potential Usages of OWL in QUIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Crucial Data Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Packet Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  OWL Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Round-trip time (RTT) is commonly used in congestion control and loss
   recovery mechanism for data transmission.  Yet the key issue for data
   transmission is simply the delay of the data transmission along a
   path which does not include the return.  The latency for uplink and
   downlink between two peers may be very different.  RTT, which cannot
   accurately reflect the delay of the data transmission along a path,
   can be easily influenced by the latency in the opposite direction
   along that path.  Therefore, the use of One Way Latency (OWL)
   [I-D.song-mptcp-owl] is proposed to describe the exact latency from
   the time that data is sent to the time data is received.

   Using the timestamps information in the ACK Frame of QUIC
   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport], the One Way Latency can be calculated in
   absolute value or in relative value.  As multipath will be supported
   by QUIC, path selection based on One Way Latency can improve the
   performance of multipath in QUIC in several situations, such as
   congestion control, packet retransmission, crucial data scheduling,
   etc.

   We suggest discussing the necessary considerations of OWL in QUIC.
   In the following, possible usages of OWL in QUIC are analyzed, and
Show full document text