Skip to main content

Application of Explicit Measurement Techniques for QUIC Troubleshooting

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Alexandre Ferrieux , Igor Lubashev , Giuseppe Fioccola , Isabelle Hamchaoui , Massimo Nilo , Fabio Bulgarella , Mauro Cociglio
Last updated 2024-03-04
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
QUIC                                                    A. Ferrieux, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               Orange Labs
Intended status: Standards Track                        I. Lubashev, Ed.
Expires: 5 September 2024                            Akamai Technologies
                                                        G. Fioccola, Ed.
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                            I. Hamchaoui
                                                             Orange Labs
                                                                 M. Nilo
                                                           F. Bulgarella
                                                    Telecom Italia - TIM
                                                             M. Cociglio
                                                            4 March 2024

Application of Explicit Measurement Techniques for QUIC Troubleshooting


   This document defines an extension to the QUIC transport protocol to
   allow endpoints to signal packet loss in a way that can be used by
   network devices to measure and locate the source of the loss.

   Discussion of this work is encouraged to happen on the QUIC IETF
   mailing list ( or on the GitHub
   repository which contains the draft:
   draft-mdt-quic-explicit-measurements (

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

   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 5 September 2024.

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 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 (
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  On-Path RTT Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  On-Path Loss Observation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  On-Path Loss Signaling in QUIC  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Recommended Use of the Signals  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Loss Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Setting the sQuare Signal Bit on Outgoing Packets . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Q Run Length Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Setting the Loss Event Bit on Outgoing Packets  . . . . .   6
   5.  Using Loss Bits for Passive Loss Measurement  . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  End-To-End Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Upstream Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Correlating End-to-End and Upstream Loss  . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  Downstream Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.5.  Observer Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Transport Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Short Packet Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  Header Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Ossification Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Optimistic ACK Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

1.  Introduction

   Packet loss is a hard and pervasive problem of day-to-day network
   operation.  Proactively detecting, measuring, and locating it is
   crucial to maintaining high QoS and timely resolution of crippling
   end-to-end throughput issues.  To this effect, in a TCP-dominated
   world, network operators have been heavily relying on information
   present in the clear in TCP headers: sequence and acknowledgment
   numbers, and SACKs when enabled.  These allow for quantitative
   estimation of packet loss by passive on-path observation.

   With QUIC, the equivalent transport headers are encrypted, and
   passive packet loss observation is not possible, as described in

   Measuring TCP loss between similar endpoints cannot be relied upon to
   evaluate QUIC loss.  QUIC could be routed by the network differently
   and the fraction of Internet traffic delivered using QUIC is
   increasing every year.  It is imperative to measure packet loss
   experienced by QUIC users directly.

   The Alternate-Marking method [AltMark] defines a consolidated method
   to perform packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live
   traffic.  However, as noted in [EXPLICIT-MEASUREMENTS], applying
   [AltMark] to end-to-end transport-layer connections is not easy
   because packet identification and marking by network nodes is
   prevented when QUIC encrypted transport-layer header is being used.

   This document defines an extension to the QUIC protocol to enable
   packet loss measurements using Explicit Host-to-Network Flow
   Measurement Techniques defined in [EXPLICIT-MEASUREMENTS].

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  On-Path RTT Observation

   [QUIC-TRANSPORT] already introduces an explicit per-flow transport-
   layer signal for hybrid measurement of RTT.  This signal consists of
   a Spin bit that toggles once per RTT.

3.  On-Path Loss Observation

   There are three sources of loss that network operators need to
   observe to guarantee high QoS:

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

   *  _upstream loss_ - loss between the sender and the observation
      point (Section 5.2)

   *  _downstream loss_ - loss between the observation point and the
      destination (Section 5.4)

   *  _observer loss_ - loss by the observer itself that does not cause
      downstream loss (Section 5.5)

   The upstream and downstream loss together constitute _end-to-end
   loss_ (Section 5.1).

3.1.  On-Path Loss Signaling in QUIC

   [EXPLICIT-MEASUREMENTS] introduces several techniques for using
   explicit loss bits in the clear portion of transport protocol headers
   to signal packet loss to on-path network devices.  The explicit loss
   bits used in this document are the "sQuare signal" bit (Q) and the
   "Loss event" bit (L) (see Section 4.1 and Section 4.2).  This
   approach follows the recommendations of [RFC8558] that recommends
   explicit path signals.  The current document adapts the technique
   proposed in [LOSSBITS] for QUIC by using reserved bits in QUIC v1
   short header.

   While the exploitation of only Q can help in measuring the _upstream
   loss_ and only L can help in measuring the _end-to-end loss_, both
   are required to detect and measure the other types of losses
   (_downstream loss_ and _observer loss_).

3.2.  Recommended Use of the Signals

   The loss signal is not designed for use in automated control of the
   network in environments where loss bits are set by untrusted hosts.
   Instead, the signal is to be used for troubleshooting individual
   flows and for monitoring the network by aggregating information from
   multiple flows and raising operator alarms if aggregate statistics
   indicate a potential problem.

4.  Loss Bits

   The draft introduces two bits that are to be present in packets with
   a short header.  Therefore, only loss of short header packets is
   reported using loss bits.  Whenever this specification refers to
   packets, it is referring only to packets with short headers.

   *  Q: The "sQuare signal" bit is toggled every N outgoing packets, as
      explained below in Section 4.1.

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

   *  L: The "Loss event" bit is set to 0 or 1 according to the
      Unreported Loss counter, as explained below in Section 4.2.

   Each endpoint maintains appropriate counters independently and
   separately for each connection 4-tuple and Destination Connection ID.
   Whenever this specification refers to connections, it is referring to
   packets sharing the same 4-tuple and Destination Connection ID.  A
   "QUIC connection", however, refers to connections in the traditional
   QUIC sense.

4.1.  Setting the sQuare Signal Bit on Outgoing Packets

   The sQuare bit (Q bit) takes its name from the square wave generated
   by its signal.  This method is based on the Alternate-Marking method
   [AltMark].  The sQuare Value is initialized to the Initial Q Value (0
   or 1) and is reflected in the Q bit of every outgoing packet.  The
   sQuare value is inverted after sending every N packets (a Q run).
   Hence, Q Period is 2*N.  The Q bit represents "packet color" as
   defined by [RFC8321].

   Observation points can estimate upstream losses by counting the
   number of packets during one period of the square signal, as
   described in Section 5.

4.1.1.  Q Run Length Selection

   The sender is expected to choose N (Q run length) based on the
   expected amount of loss and reordering on the path.  The choice of N
   strikes a compromise -- the observation could become too unreliable
   in case of packet reordering and/or severe loss if N is too small,
   while short connections may not yield a useful upstream loss
   measurement if N is too large (see Section 5.2).

   The value of N MUST be at least 64 and be a power of 2.  This
   requirement allows an Observer to infer the Q run length by observing
   one period of the square signal.  It also allows the Observer to
   identify flows that set the loss bits to arbitrary values (see
   Section 7).

   If the sender does not have sufficient information to make an
   informed decision about Q run length, the sender SHOULD use N=64,
   since this value has been extensively tested in large-scale field
   tests and yielded good results.  Alternatively, the sender MAY also
   choose a random N for each connection, increasing the chances of
   using a Q run length that gives the best signal for some connections.

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

   The sender MUST keep the value of N constant for a given connection.
   The sender can change the value of N during a QUIC connection by
   switching to a new Destination Connection ID, if one is available.

4.2.  Setting the Loss Event Bit on Outgoing Packets

   The Loss Event bit uses the Unreported Loss counter maintained by the
   QUIC protocol.  The Unreported Loss counter is initialized to 0, and
   the L bit of every outgoing packet indicates whether the Unreported
   Loss counter is positive (L=1 if the counter is positive, and L=0
   otherwise).  The value of the Unreported Loss counter is decremented
   every time a packet with L=1 is sent.

   The value of the Unreported Loss counter is incremented for every
   packet that the protocol declares lost, using QUIC's existing loss
   detection machinery.  If the implementation is able to rescind the
   loss determination later, a positive Unreported Loss counter MAY be
   decremented due to the rescission, but it SHOULD NOT become negative.

   This loss signaling is similar to loss signaling in [RFC7713], except
   the Loss Event bit is reporting the exact number of lost packets,
   whereas the Echo Loss bit in [RFC7713] is reporting an approximate
   number of lost bytes.

   Observation points can estimate the end-to-end loss, as determined by
   the upstream endpoint, by counting packets in this direction with the
   L bit equal to 1, as described in Section 5.

5.  Using Loss Bits for Passive Loss Measurement

5.1.  End-To-End Loss

   The Loss Event bit allows an observer to calculate the end-to-end
   loss rate by counting packets with the L bit value of 0 and 1 for a
   given connection.  The end-to-end loss rate is the fraction of
   packets with L=1.

   The assumption here is that upstream loss affects packets with L=0
   and L=1 equally.  If some loss is caused by tail-drop in a network
   device, this may be a simplification.  If the sender congestion
   controller reduces the packet send rate after loss, there may be a
   sufficient delay before sending packets with L=1 that they have a
   greater chance of arriving at the observer.

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

5.2.  Upstream Loss

   Blocks of N (Q run length) consecutive packets are sent with the same
   value of the Q bit, followed by another block of N packets with an
   inverted value of the Q bit.  Hence, knowing the value of N, an on-
   path observer can estimate the amount of loss after observing at
   least N packets.  The upstream loss rate (u) is one minus the average
   number of packets in a block of packets with the same Q value (p)
   divided by N (u=1-avg(p)/N).

   The observer needs to be able to tolerate packet reordering that can
   blur the edges of the square signal.

   The observer needs to differentiate packets as belonging to different
   connections, since they use independent counters.

5.3.  Correlating End-to-End and Upstream Loss

   Upstream loss is calculated by observing packets that did not suffer
   the upstream loss.  End-to-end loss, however, is calculated by
   observing subsequent packets after the sender's protocol detected the
   loss.  Hence, end-to-end loss is generally observed with a delay of
   between 1 RTT (loss declared due to multiple duplicate
   acknowledgments) and 1 RTO (loss declared due to a timeout) relative
   to the upstream loss.

   The connection RTT can sometimes be estimated by timing protocol
   handshake messages.  This RTT estimate can be greatly improved by
   observing a dedicated protocol mechanism for conveying RTT
   information, such as the latency Spin bit of [QUIC-TRANSPORT].

   Whenever the observer needs to perform a computation that uses both
   upstream and end-to-end loss rate measurements, it SHOULD use
   upstream loss rate leading the end-to-end loss rate by approximately
   1 RTT.  If the observer is unable to estimate RTT of the connection,
   it should accumulate loss measurements over time periods of at least
   4 times the typical RTT for the observed connections.

   If the calculated upstream loss rate exceeds the end-to-end loss rate
   calculated in Section 5.1, then either the Q run length is too short
   for the amount of packet reordering or there is observer loss,
   described in Section 5.5.  If this happens, the observer SHOULD
   adjust the calculated upstream loss rate to match end-to-end loss

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

5.4.  Downstream Loss

   Because downstream loss affects only those packets that did not
   suffer upstream loss, the end-to-end loss rate (e) relates to the
   upstream loss rate (u) and downstream loss rate (d) as
   (1-u)(1-d)=1-e.  Hence, d=(e-u)/(1-u).

5.5.  Observer Loss

   A typical deployment of a passive observation system includes a
   network tap device that mirrors network packets of interest to a
   device that performs analysis and measurement on the mirrored
   packets.  The observer loss is the loss that occurs on the mirror

   Observer loss affects upstream loss rate measurement, since it causes
   the observer to account for fewer packets in a block of identical Q
   bit values (see Section 5.2).  The end-to-end loss rate measurement,
   however, is unaffected by the observer loss, since it is a
   measurement of the fraction of packets with the set L bit value, and
   the observer loss would affect all packets equally (see Section 5.1).

   The need to adjust the upstream loss rate down to match end-to-end
   loss rate as described in Section 5.3 is a strong indication of the
   observer loss, whose magnitude is between the amount of such
   adjustment and the entirety of the upstream loss measured in
   Section 5.2.  Alternatively, a high apparent upstream loss rate could
   be an indication of significant reordering, possibly due to packets
   belonging to a single connection being multiplexed over several
   upstream paths with different latency characteristics.

6.  Implementation

6.1.  Transport Parameter

   The use of the loss bits is negotiated using a transport parameter:

   network_troubleshooting (0x1057):  The network_troubleshooting
      transport parameter is an integer value, encoded as a variable-
      length integer, that can be set to 0 or 1 indicating the level of
      loss bits support.

   When network_troubleshooting parameter is present, the peer is
   allowed to use reserved bits in the short packet header as loss bits
   if the peer sends network_troubleshooting=1.

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

   When network_troubleshooting is set to 1, the sender will use
   reserved bits as loss bits if the peer includes the
   network_troubleshooting transport parameter.

   A client MUST NOT use remembered value of network_troubleshooting for
   0-RTT connections.

   Except for the cases outlined in Section 7, it is RECOMMENDED for the
   server to consistently include the network_troubleshooting parameter.
   This enable clients to utilize loss bits at their discretion.

6.2.  Short Packet Header

   When sending loss bits has been negotiated, the reserved (R) bits are
   replaced by the loss (Q and L) bits in the short packet header (see
   Section 17.3 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]).

       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      |0|1|S|Q|L|K|P P|

   sQuare Signal Bit (Q):  The fourth most significant bit (0x10) is the
      sQuare signal bit, set as described in Section 4.1.

   Loss Event Bit (L):  The fifth most significant bit (0x08) is the
      Loss event bit, set as described in Section 4.2.

6.3.  Header Protection

   Unlike the reserved (R) bits, the loss (Q and L) bits are not
   protected.  When sending loss bits has been negotiated, the first
   byte of the header protection mask used to protect short packet
   headers has its five most significant bits masked out instead of

   The algorithm specified in Section 5.4.1 of [QUIC-TLS] changes as

         # Short header: 3 bits masked
         packet[0] ^= mask[0] & 0x07

7.  Ossification Considerations

   Accurate loss reporting signal is not critical for the operation of
   the QUIC protocol, though its presence in a sufficient number of
   connections is important for the operation of networks.

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

   The loss bits are amenable to "greasing" described in [RFC8701] and
   MUST be greased.  The greasing should be accomplished similarly to
   the latency Spin bit greasing in [QUIC-TRANSPORT].  Namely,
   implementations MUST NOT include network_troubleshooting transport
   parameter for a random selection of at least one in every 16 QUIC

   It is possible to observe packet reordering near the edge of the
   square signal.  A middle box might observe the signal and try to fix
   packet reordering that it can identify, though only a small fraction
   of reordering can be fixed using this method.  Latency Spin bit
   signal edge can be used for the same purpose.

8.  Security Considerations

   The measurements described in this document do not involve new
   packets injected into the network causing potential harm to the
   network itself and to data traffic.  The measurements could be harmed
   by a malicious endpoint misreporting losses or an attacker injecting
   artificial traffic.  In the environments where such attacks are
   possible and cannot be identified by on-path observers, loss signal
   should not be used for automated control of the network.

   In the absence of packet loss, the Q bit signal does not provide any
   information that cannot be observed by simply counting packets
   transiting a network path.  The L bit signal discloses internal state
   of the protocol's loss detection machinery, but this state can often
   be gleaned by timing packets and observing congestion controller
   response.  Hence, loss bits do not provide a viable new mechanism to
   attack QUIC data integrity and secrecy.

8.1.  Optimistic ACK Attack

   A defense against an Optimistic ACK Attack [QUIC-TRANSPORT] involves
   a sender randomly skipping packet numbers to detect a receiver
   acknowledging packet numbers that have never been received.  The Q
   bit signal may inform the attacker which packet numbers were skipped
   on purpose and which had been actually lost (and are, therefore, safe
   for the attacker to acknowledge).  To use the Q bit for this purpose,
   the attacker must first receive at least an entire Q run of packets,
   which renders the attack ineffective against a delay-sensitive
   congestion controller.

   For QUIC v1 connections, if the attacker can make its peer transmit
   data using a single large stream, examining offsets in STREAM frames
   can reveal whether packet number skips are deliberate.  In that case,
   the Q bit signal provides no new information (but it does save the
   attacker the need to remove packet protection).  However, an endpoint

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

   that communicates using [DATAGRAM] and uses a loss-based congestion
   controller MAY shorten the current Q run by the number of skipped
   packets.  For example, skipping a single packet number will invert
   the sQuare signal one outgoing packet sooner.

9.  Privacy Considerations

   To minimize unintentional exposure of information, loss bits provide
   an explicit loss signal -- a preferred way to share information per

   [QUIC-TRANSPORT] allows changing connection IDs in the middle of a
   QUIC connection to reduce the likelihood of a passive observer
   linking old and new subflows to the same device.  Hence, a QUIC
   implementation would need to reset all counters when it changes
   connection ID used for outgoing packets.  It would also need to avoid
   incrementing Unreported Loss counter for loss of packets sent with a
   different connection ID.

   Accurate loss information allows identification and correlation of
   network conditions upstream and downstream of the observer.  This
   could be a powerful tool to identify connections that attempt to hide
   their origin networks, if the adversary is able to affect network
   conditions in those origin networks.  Similar information can be
   obtained by packet timing and inferring congestion controller
   response to network events, but loss information provides a clearer

   Implementations MUST allow administrators of clients and servers to
   disable loss reporting either globally or per QUIC connection.
   Additionally, as described in Section 7, loss reporting MUST be
   disabled for a certain fraction of all QUIC connections.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers a new value in the QUIC Transport Parameter

   Value: 0x1057 (if this document is approved)

   Parameter Name: network_troubleshooting

   Specification: Indicates that the endpoint supports
   network_troubleshooting.  An endpoint that advertises this transport
   parameter can receive loss bits.  An endpoint that advertises this
   transport parameter with value 1 can also send loss bits.

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

11.  Change Log


12.  Acknowledgments

   The following people directly contributed key ideas that shaped this
   draft: Kazuho Oku, Christian Huitema.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [AltMark]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
              and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,

              Cociglio, M., Ferrieux, A., Fioccola, G., Lubashev, I.,
              Bulgarella, F., Nilo, M., Hamchaoui, I., and R. Sisto,
              "Explicit Host-to-Network Flow Measurements Techniques",
              RFC 9506, DOI 10.17487/RFC9506, October 2023,

   [QUIC-TLS] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
              QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,

              Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC8558]  Hardie, T., Ed., "Transport Protocol Path Signals",
              RFC 8558, DOI 10.17487/RFC8558, April 2019,

   [RFC8701]  Benjamin, D., "Applying Generate Random Extensions And
              Sustain Extensibility (GREASE) to TLS Extensibility",
              RFC 8701, DOI 10.17487/RFC8701, January 2020,

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

   [RFC9065]  Fairhurst, G. and C. Perkins, "Considerations around
              Transport Header Confidentiality, Network Operations, and
              the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols", RFC 9065,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9065, July 2021,

13.2.  Informative References

   [DATAGRAM] Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
              Datagram Extension to QUIC", RFC 9221,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9221, March 2022,

   [LOSSBITS] Ferrieux, A., Hamchaoui, I., Lubashev, I., and D.
              Tikhonov, "Packet Loss Signaling for Encrypted Protocols",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-
              tsvwg-lossbits-03, 28 July 2020,

   [RFC7713]  Mathis, M. and B. Briscoe, "Congestion Exposure (ConEx)
              Concepts, Abstract Mechanism, and Requirements", RFC 7713,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7713, December 2015,

   [RFC8321]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
              L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
              "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
              Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
              January 2018, <>.

Authors' Addresses

   Alexandre Ferrieux (editor)
   Orange Labs

   Igor Lubashev (editor)
   Akamai Technologies

   Giuseppe Fioccola (editor)
   Huawei Technologies

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            explicit-measurements               March 2024

   Isabelle Hamchaoui
   Orange Labs

   Massimo Nilo
   Telecom Italia - TIM
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   10148 Torino

   Fabio Bulgarella
   Telecom Italia - TIM
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   10148 Torino

   Mauro Cociglio

Ferrieux, et al.        Expires 5 September 2024               [Page 14]