\
Internet Engineering Task Force                                  N. Kuhn
Internet-Draft                                       Thales Alenia Space
Intended status: Informational                                E. Stephan
Expires: 7 November 2022                                          Orange
                                                            G. Fairhurst
                                                                T. Jones
                                                  University of Aberdeen
                                                              C. Huitema
                                                    Private Octopus Inc.
                                                              6 May 2022


                     Carefully Resume QUIC Session
                   draft-kuhn-quic-careful-resume-01

Abstract

   This document provides a method to allow a QUIC session to carefully
   resume using a previously utilised Internet path.

   The method uses a set of computed congestion control parameters that
   are based on the previously observed path characteristics, such as
   the bottleneck bandwidth, available capacity, or the RTT.  These
   parameters are stored and can then used to modify the congestion
   control behaviour of a subsequent connection.  The draft discusses
   assumptions around how a server ought to utilise the parameters to
   provide opportunities for a new flow to more quickly get up to speed
   (i.e. utilise available capacity).  It discusses how these changes
   impact the capacity at a shared network bottleneck and the response
   that is needed after any indication that the new rate is
   inappropriate.

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 7 November 2022.



Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 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
   2.  Language, notations and terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Notations and Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Scenarios of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Large BDP Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Accomodating from a Known Reduction in Capacity . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Optimizing Client Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Sharing Transport Information across Multiple
           Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  Connection Establishment, Client and Server . . . . . . .   8
   4.  The Phases of CC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Safe Jump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Rationale behind the Safety Guidelines  . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Rationale #1: Variable Network Conditions . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Rationale #2: Malicious clients . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.4.  Trade-off between the different solutions . . . . . . . .  12
       5.4.1.  Interoperability and Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.4.2.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Safety Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix A.  Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     A.1.  Rationale behind the different implementation options . .  19
     A.2.  Independent Local Storage of Values . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     A.3.  Using NEW_TOKEN frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.4.  BDP Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20



Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


1.  Introduction

   The specification for the QUIC transport protocol [RFC9000] notes
   "Generally, implementations are advised to be cautious when using
   previous values on a new path."  The method uses a set of computed
   Congestion Control (CC) parameters that are based on the previously
   observed path characteristics, such as the bottleneck bandwidth,
   available capacity, or the Round Trip Time (RTT).  These parameters
   are stored and can then used to modify the congestion control
   behaviour of a subsequent connection.

   All Internet transports are required to use a CC method.  In 2010,
   RFC 5783 provided a survey of alternative CC methods, and noted that
   there are challenges when a CC operates across paths with a high and/
   or variable bandwidth-delay product (BDP) [RFC5783].

   A CC algorithm typically takes time to ramp-up the packet rate,
   called the "slow-start phase", informally known as the time to "Get
   up to speed".  The slow start phase is a period in which a sender
   intentionally uses less capacity than might be available with the
   intention to avoid overshooting the actual capacity at a bottleneck,
   which would result in increased queueing (latency/jitter) and/or
   congestion packet loss.  An overshoot in the capacity can also have a
   detrimental effect on other flows sharing a common bottleneck.  In
   the extreme case, persistent congestion can result in unwanted
   starvation of other flows [RFC8867] (i.e.  Preventing other flows
   from successfully sharing a common bottleneck).

   In Reno, the slow-start phase consists of a sequence of increases in
   the congestion window (cwnd) starting from the Initial Window (IW).
   Each step lasts approximately one path RTT, until the sender estimate
   that the capacity has reached (or is nearing) the capacity at the
   bottleneck for the path).

   To fully-utilise the capacity along a path with a certain path RTT,
   the transport needs to determine an appropriate volume of bytes in
   flight, based on the product of the available capacity and the RTT.
   [RFC6349] defines the BDP as follows: "Derived from Round-Trip Time
   (RTT) and network Bottleneck Bandwidth (BB), the Bandwidth-Delay
   Product (BDP) determines the Send and Received Socket buffer sizes
   required to achieve the maximum TCP Throughput."  The BDP estimated
   by a server includes all buffering experienced along a network path.
   Various approaches are possible to determine the BDP, based on
   measurements of the path characteristics.  [RFC6349] specifies one
   procedure for TCP.  CC for QUIC is specified in [RFC9002] and does
   not specify a required method to measure the BDP, allowing the sender
   to implement an appropriate method.




Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   This document specifies a method for QUIC that can improve traffic
   delivery (e.g. throughput) by allowing a QUIC connection to reduce
   the total duration of the slow start phase under specific conditions.
   This introduces an alternative way to discover initial key path
   parameters, including a way to more rapidly and safely grow the cwnd.

   There are scenarios where sharing previously computed parameters
   relating to path characteristics, such as the bottleneck bandwidth or
   RTT, can help to save round-trip times at the start of a new
   connection.  For example:

   1.  To optimize sessions that use a series of short flows over the
       same path, each of which needs to individually learn the
       available capacity/rtt (e.g., a client using Dynamic Adaptive
       Streaming over HTTPS, DASH);

   2.  After a pause in transmission (e.g., when a user uses a path,
       pauses a session, and then wishes to resume the session over the
       same path;

   3.  To resume a session after a service disruption (e.g., where the
       network service temporarily reduced due to a link propagation
       impairment, or where a user on a train journey travels through
       different areas of connectivity with a temporary change in path
       characteristics before the user returns to the original path
       characteristics).

   In all of these cases, specific characteristics of the path may have
   been learned, including CC information, such as the available
   capacity and RTT.  This CC information might be expected to be
   similar when a new connection is made between the same local and
   remote endpoints.

   While the server could take optimization decisions without
   considering the client's preference, in some cases a client could
   have information that is not available at the server.  A client may
   provide hints, for example: (1) information abnout how the upper
   layers expect to use a connection - such as the expected size of
   transfer; (2) an indication that the path/local interface has
   changed; (3) information related to current hardware limitations of
   the client or (4) an understanding about the capacity needs of other
   concurrent flows that would compete for shared capacity.  As a
   result, a client could explicitely ask for tuning the slow start of
   the resumed connection, or to inhibit tuning.  This is discussed
   further later in the document.






Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   There are also cases where using the parameters of a previous
   connection are not appropriate, and a need to evaluate the potential
   malicious use of the method.

   The remainder of this document:

   1.  discusses use-cases where carefully resuming QUIC sessions is
       expected to have benefit;

   2.  proposes guidelines for how to carefully utilise the previously
       stored CC information;

   3.  describes implementation considerations for the proposed method
       using QUIC;

   4.  discusses the trade-offs associated with the different
       implementation solutions.

2.  Language, notations and terms

   This section provides a brief summary of key terms and the
   requirements language that is used.  The document uses language drawn
   from a range of IETF RFCs.

2.1.  Requirements Language

   The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.2.  Notations and Terms

   This document defines current, and saved values for a set of CC
   parameters:

   *  IW: Initial Window [RFC9002];

   *  current_iw: Current IW;

   *  recom_iw: Recommended IW;

   *  current_bb : Current estimated bottleneck bandwidth;

   *  saved_bb: Estimated bottleneck bandwidth preserved from a previous
      connection;




Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   *  current_rtt: Current RTT;

   *  saved_rtt: RTT measure RTT preserved from a previous connection;

   *  client_ip : IP address of the client;

   *  current_client_ip : Current IP address of the client;

   *  saved_client_ip : IP address of a previous connection by the
      client;

   *  remembered BDP parameters: a combination of saved_rtt and saved_bb

   Congestion controllers, such as CUBIC or RENO, could estimate the
   saved_bb and current_bb values by utilizing a combination of the
   cwnd/flight_size and the minimum RTT.  A different method could be
   used to estimate the same values when using a rate-based congestion
   controller, such as BBR [I-D.cardwell-iccrg-bbr-congestion-control].
   It is important to consider whether the methods could result in over-
   estimating the bottleneck bandwidth, and the preserved values there
   ought to be used with caution.

3.  Scenarios of Interest

3.1.  Large BDP Scenarios

   QUIC introduces the concept of transport parameters (section 4 of
   [RFC9000]).  This document notes that a new connection can utilise a
   set of key transport parameters from a previous connection to reduce
   the completion time for a transfer of size much larger than the IW
   over paths where the available capacity is also significantly larger
   than the IW.  This benefit is particularly evident for a path where
   the RTT is much larger than a typical Internet RTT.

   For example, a satellite access network, a 5.3 MB transfer takes up
   to 9 seconds using standard congestion control, whereas using the
   specified method this could reduce to 4 seconds [IJSCN]; and the time
   to complete a 1 MB transfer could be reduced by 62 % [MAPRG111].
   Benefits is also expected for other sizes of transfer and for
   different path characteristics that also result in a higher BDP.

3.2.  Accomodating from a Known Reduction in Capacity

   A transport protocol is not able to assume that the path
   characteristics it experiences remain the same.  Variation can arise
   from a combination of various factors:





Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   *  Competing network traffic sharing a common bottleneck can result
      in short or long term variation;

   *  Changes in forward path can change the set of links/routers over
      which the flow is forwarded (from routing/mobility/circuit
      restoration/interface change), result in a change in the bandwidth
      and the other traffic that shares all/part of the path;

   *  Link conditions can result in a change of the total bandwidth
      (e.g., as a result of changes in propagation conditions or sharing
      of a medium);

   *  Application/endpoint Behavior can change the capacity available to
      a flow.

   The characteristics of an Internet path therefore need to be measured
   by the transport protocol, and may not reflect the actual path used
   by a new connection.  Older measurements, or cases where measurements
   are known to vary significantly are more likely to be invalid.

   In some cases (e.g., after a change in the interface used by the
   local endpoint), a client may be aware of such a change, and might be
   able to infer that a previously available path has again become
   available.  However, to utilise the previous information, the client
   would need assurance that the path was to the same endpoint, and that
   the characteristics have not significantly changed from those
   previously measured.  When the path is expected to be the same, there
   is then an opportunity to save time (eliminate RTTs consumed by slow
   start) by utilising saved CC information for the path.

3.3.  Optimizing Client Requests

   Some styles of usage do not use long-lasting connections at the
   transport layer.  Instead, they use a series of shorter connections.
   For example, a client using Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTPS
   (DASH).  Such a client might be unable to reach the video playback
   quality that is supported by the path, because for each video chunk,
   the transport protocol needs to independently determine the path
   capacity.  The lower transfer rate is safe, but can also lead to an
   overly conservative requested rate by the client, because clients
   often adapt their application-layer requests based on the transport
   performance (i.e., the client could fail to increase the requested
   quality of video chunks, or to fill buffers to avoid stalling
   playback or to send high quality advertisements).

   There are other cases where applications could provide additional
   services if a client knew the path characteristics.




Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


3.4.  Sharing Transport Information across Multiple Connections

   There can be benefit in sharing transport information across multiple
   concurrent connections.  [RFC9040] considers the sharing of transport
   parameters between TCP connections that originate from the same host.
   The proposal in this document has the advantage of storing server-
   generated information at the client and not requiring the server to
   retain additional state for each client.

3.5.  Connection Establishment, Client and Server

   In the previously detailed scenarios, the application data transfer
   was unidirectional towards the client, i.e., the main flow of data
   was from a server to a client (e.g., downloading a file or web page).
   This is the focus of the current version of the document.

   In a different example, the application data transfer can still be
   unidirectional, but towards the server, e.g., uploading an image/
   video is a server.

   There are also use cases where a client initiates a connection for a
   bidirectional service where both endpoints send appreciable data to
   each other, such as to support a remote executing application, or a
   video conference call.

   In general, the guidelines proposed in this document apply when a
   congestion controller is sending data to a remote peer and that
   remote endpoint resumes the session.  Both endpoints can assume the
   role of a client or a server.

4.  The Phases of CC

   This document defines a series of different phases through which the
   CC algorithm moves as a connection gets up to speed.  The phases are
   labelled as follows:

   1.  Observe: During a previous connection, the current RTT
       (current_rtt), bottleneck bandwidth (current_bb) and current
       client IP (current_client_ip) are stored as saved_rtt, saved_bb
       and saved_client_ip;

   2.  Reconnaissance: When resuming a session between the same pair of
       IP addresses, the server measures the path characteristics of a
       new connection to confirm the path appears the same as observed
       previously (e.g., path with similar RTT).  The server also seeks
       assurance that initial data is not lost, to avoid resuming under
       congested conditions.




Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   3.  Unvalidated: Utilise the saved path characteristics to send at a
       rate higher than allowed by slow start.  The convergence towards
       the previous rate is expected be quicker than when using
       traditional slow-start mechanisms, but should not be
       instantaneous, to avoid adding congestion to a congested
       bottleneck.

       1.  If the unvalidated rate was used without inducing noticeable
           congestion to the path, the server is permitted to continue
           sending at this rate in the 'Normal' phase.

       2.  If the validation phase determines that previous parameters
           are not valid (due to a change) or congestion was
           experienced, the sender must withdraw rapidly to a safe rate,
           before it enters the 'Normal' phase.

   4.  Normal: Resume using the normal CC method.

5.  Safe Jump

5.1.  Rationale behind the Safety Guidelines

   NOTE: The sender ought not to re-utilise all capacity it previously
   used, to avoiding starving flows that started after the measurement.
   How strong should this be stated: ... MUST or SHOULD ... What safety
   factor is appropriate for the resuming sender?  If using slow-start
   it would anyway double the rate on the next RTT, so is capacity/2
   appropriate to initially try?

   A connection MUST NOT use the previously measured saved_rtt and
   saved_bb to simply initialise a new flow to resume sending at the
   same rate.

   *  Rationale #1: Bottleneck bandwidth and network traffic can change
      at any time.  An Internet method needs to be robust to network
      conditions that can differ from one session to the next, due to
      variations in the forwarding path, reconfiguration of equipment or
      changes in the link conditions.  An Internet method needs to be
      robust to changes in network traffic, including the arrival of new
      traffic flows that compete for the bottleneck capacity.
      Behaviours need to be designed that avoid sending excessive data
      into a congestion bottleneck because this can have a material
      impact on any flows using that bottleneck, and the ability of
      those flows to control their own sending rate.







Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   *  Rationale #2: Information sent by a malicious client is not
      relevant.  A client could request a server to use a cwnd higher
      than appropriate, to gain an unfair share of capacity for itself
      or to induce congestion for other flows.  A server might anyway
      decide whether to fully use the new allowed rate.

5.2.  Rationale #1: Variable Network Conditions

   The server MUST check the validity of any received saved_rtt and
   saved_bb parameters, whether these are sent by a client or are stored
   at the server.  The following events indicates cases where the use of
   these parameters is inappropriate:

   *  IP address change: If the client changes its local IP address
      (i.e., the saved_client_ip is different from the
      current_client_ip), the different source address is a assumed an
      indication of a different network path.  This new path does not
      necessarily exhibit the same characteristics as the old one.  If
      the server changes its IP address after a migration, it would not
      be safe to exploit previously estimated parameters.

   *  RTT change: A significant change in RTT might be an indication
      that the network conditions have changed.  Since the CC
      information is directly impacted by the RTT, a significant change
      in the RTT is a strong indication that the previously estimated
      BDP parameters are likely to not be valid for the current path.
      NOTE: This document needs to define a significant change.

   *  Lifetime of the information: The CC information is temporal.
      Frequent connections to the same IP address are likely to track
      changes, but long-term use of previous values is not appropriate.
      NOTE: This document needs to define how long.

   *  BB over-estimation: There are cases where using a measured cwnd
      would inflate the bottleneck bandwidth.  At the end of the CC slow
      start phase, the value of cwnd can be significantly larger than
      the minimum value needed to utilise the path (i.e., cwnd
      overshoot).  In most case, the cwnd finally converges to a stable
      value after a few more RTTs.  It would be inappropriate to use an
      overshoot in the cwnd as a basis for estimating the bottleneck
      bandwidth.  NOTE: One mitigation could be to further restrict to
      only a fraction (e.g., 1/2) of the previously used cwnd; another
      mitigation might be to calculate the bottleneck bandwidth based on
      the flight_size or an averaged cwnd.

   *  Preventing Starvation of New Flows: It would not be appropriate to
      fully use a bottleneck bandwidth estimate based on a previous
      measurement of capacity, because new flows might have started



Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


      using the available capacity since that measurement was made.  The
      mitigation could be to restrict to only a fraction (e.g., 1/2) of
      the previously used cwnd.

   There are several solutions to mitigate the impact of changes in
   network conditions:

   *  Rationale #1 - Solution #1 : When resuming a session, restore the
      current_bb and current_rtt from the saved_bb and saved_rtt
      parameters estimated from a previous connection.

   *  Rationale #1 - Solution #2 : When resuming a session, implement a
      safety check to measure avoid using the saved_bb and saved_rtt
      parameters to cause congestion over the path.  In this case, the
      current_bb and current_rtt might not be set directly to the
      saved_bb and saved_rtt: the server might wait for the completion
      of the safety check before this is done.

   Section 6 describes various approaches for Rationale #1 - Solution
   #2.

5.3.  Rationale #2: Malicious clients

   The server MUST check the integrity of the saved_rtt and saved_bb
   parameters received from a client.

   There are several solutions to avoid attacks by malicious clients:

   *  Rationale #2 - Solution #1 : The server stores a local estimate of
      the bottleneck bandwidth and RTT parameters as the saved_bb and
      saved_rtt.

   *  Rationale #2 - Solution #2 : The server sends the estimate of the
      bottleneck bandwidth and RTT parameters to the client as the
      saved_bb and saved_rtt in a block of information that is
      authenticated.  This information also could be encrypted by the
      server.  The client resends the same information when resuming a
      connection.  The server can use its local key information to
      authenticate the information, without needing to keep a local
      copy.

   *  Rationale #2 - Solution #3 : This approach is the same as above,
      except that the server sends an estimate of the saved_rtt and
      saved_bb parameters in a form that may be read by the client.  The
      information might not be encrypted, or the information might be
      duplicated outside of the encrypted block.  This allows a client
      to read, but not modify, the saved_rtt and saved_bb parameters and
      could enable a client to decide whether it thinks the new



Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


      parameters are appropriate, based on client-side information about
      the network conditions, connectivity, or needs of the session
      using the connection.

   Appendix A describes various implementation approaches for each of
   these solutions using local storage ( Appendix A.2 for Rationale #2 -
   Solution #1), NEW_TOKEN Frame ( Appendix A.3 for Rationale #2 -
   Solution #2), BDP extension Frame ( Appendix A.4 for Rationale #2 -
   Solution #3).

5.4.  Trade-off between the different solutions

   This section provides a description of several implementation options
   and discusses their respective advantages and drawbacks.

   While there are some discussions for the solutions regarding
   Rationale #2, the server MUST consider Rationale #1 - Solution #2 and
   avoid Rationale #1 - Solution #1: the server MUST implement a safety
   check to measure whether the saved BDP parameters (i.e. saved_rtt and
   saved_bb) are relevant or check that their usage would not cause
   excessive congestion over the path.

   Security consideration are discussed in Section 9 .

5.4.1.  Interoperability and Use Cases

   A server that stores a resumption ticket for each client to protect
   against replay on a third party IP, it could also store the IP
   address (i.e., saved_client_ip) and BDP parameters (i.e., saved_rtt
   and saved_bb) of the previous session of the client.

   When the BDP Frame extension is used, locally stored BDP parameters
   at the server can provide a cross-check of the BDP parameters sent by
   a client.  The server can anyway enable a safe jump, but without the
   BDP Frame extension.  However, using the parameters enables a client
   to choose whether to request this or not, enabling it to utilize
   local knowledge of the network conditions, connectivity, or session
   requirements.

   XXX-Editor-note: Text to be improved: Storing local values related to
   the BDP would help improve the ingress for 0-RTT connections,
   however, not using a BDP Frame extension could reduce the interest of
   the approach where (1) the client knows the BDP estimation at the
   server, (2) the client decides to accept or reject ingress
   optimization, (3) the client tunes application level requests.






Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


5.4.2.  Summary

   Local storage of values can be secure and the BDP Frame extension
   provides more information to the client and more interoperability.
   The Figure 1 provides a summary of the advantages and drawbacks of
   each approach.

   +---------+-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
   |Rationale| Solution  |    Advantage   |    Drawback   |  Comment  |
   +---------+-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
   |#1       |#1         |                |               |           |
   |Variable |set        |Ingress optim.  |Risk of adding |MUST NOT   |
   |Network  |current_*  |                | congestion    |implement  |
   |         |to saved_* |                |               |           |
   |         +-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
   |         |#2         |                |               |           |
   |         |Implement  |Reduce risk of  |Negative impact|MUST       |
   |         |safety     | adding         | on ingress    |implement  |
   |         |check      | congestion     | optim.        |Section 3  |
   +---------+-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
   |#2       |#1         |                |               |           |
   |Malicious|Local      |Enforced        |Client unable  |           |
   |client   |storage    | security       | to decide to  |           |
   |         |           |                | reject        |           |
   |         |           |                |Malicious      |           |
   |         |           |                | server could  |           |
   |         |           |                | fill client's |           |
   |         |           |                | buffer        |           |
   |         |           |                |Limited        |           |
   |         |           |                | use-cases     |Section 4.2|
   |         +-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
   |         |#2         |                |               |           |
   |         |NEW_TOKEN  |Save resource   |Malicious      |           |
   |         |           | at server      | client could  |           |
   |         |           |Opaque token    | change token  |           |
   |         |           | protected      | even if       |           |
   |         |           |                | protected     |           |
   |         |           |                |Malicious      |           |
   |         |           |                | server could  |           |
   |         |           |                | fill client's |           |
   |         |           |                | buffer        |           |
   |         |           |                |Server may not |           |
   |         |           |                | trust client  |Section 4.3|
   |         +-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
   |         |#3         |                |               |           |
   |         |BDP        |Extended        |Malicious      |           |
   |         |extension  | use-cases      | client could  |           |
   |         |           |Save resource   | change BDP    |           |



Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   |         |           | at server      | even if       |           |
   |         |           |Client can      | protected     |           |
   |         |           | read and decide|Server may not |           |
   |         |           | to reject      | trust client  |           |
   |         |           |BDP extension   |               |           |
   |         |           | protected      |               |           |
   |         |           |                |               |Section 4.4|
   +---------+-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+

   XXX-Editor-Note: Need to clarify the text around changing
   the authenticated token.

                       Figure 1: Comparing solutions

6.  Safety Guidelines

   The following safety guidelines refer to the labelling defined in
   Section 4.

   The safety guidelines are designed to mitigate the risk that a server
   adds excessive congestion to an already congested path.  The
   following mechanisms help in fulfilling this objective:

   *  (observation phase) The server SHOULD NOT store and/or send
      information related to a previously estimated bottleneck bandwidth
      (saved_bb) (see Section 2.2 for more details on bottleneck
      bandwidth definition), if the cwnd is not at least four times
      larger than the IW.

   *  (reconnaissance phase) The server MUST NOT send more than the
      recommended maximum IW (recom_iw) in the first RTT of transmitting
      data [RFC9000].  (When used in a controlled network, additional
      information about local path characteristics could be known that
      might be used to configure a non-standard IW).

   *  (reconnaissance phase) The server MUST compare the measured
      transport parameters (in particular current_rtt) of the 0-RTT
      connection with those of the 1-RTT connection (in particular
      saved_rtt).  The method MUST NOT be used when the path fails to be
      validated;

   *  (unvalidated phase) The server MUST NOT use the parameters unless
      the first IW packets when packets are detected as lost or
      acknowledgements indicate the packets were ECN CE-marked.  These
      are indication of potential congestion and therefore the method
      MUST NOT be used;





Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   *  (unvalidated phase) The server MUST implement the retreat method
      when packets are detected as lost or acknowledgements indicate the
      packets were ECN CE-marked.  These are indication of potential
      congestion and therefore the method MUST NOT be used.

   The proposed mechanisms SHOULD be limited by any rate-limitation
   mechanisms of QUIC, such as flow control mechanisms or amplification
   attack prevention.  In particular, it may be necessary to issue
   proactive MAX_DATA frames to increase the flow control limits of a
   connection.  In particular, the maximum number of packets that can be
   sent without acknowledgements needs to be chosen to avoid the
   creation and the increase of congestion for the path.

   This extension MUST NOT provide an opportunity for the current
   connection to be a vector of an amplification attack.  The address
   validation process, used to prevent amplification attacks, SHOULD be
   performed [RFC9000].

   XXX-Editor-note: This probbaly should be a range rather than an
   inequality (current_rtt < 1.2*saved_rtt).

   The following mechanisms could be implemented:

   *  Exploit a standard IW:

      1.  The server sends the first data packet using the IW - this is
          a safe starting point for any path where there is no path
          information or congestion control information.  This avoids
          adding excessive congestion to a path;

      2.  The sender monitors the reception of the IW data.  If the path
          characteristics resemble those of a recent previous session
          from to the same server (i.e., current_rtt < 1.2*saved_rtt)
          and all data was acknowledged without reported congestion),
          the method permits the sender to utilise the saved_bb as an
          input to adapt current_bb to rapidly determine a new safe
          rate;

      3.  The sender needs to avoid a burst of packets resulting from a
          step-increase in the congestion window [RFC9000].  Pacing the
          packets as a function of the current_rtt can provide this
          additional safety during the period in which the CWND is
          increased by the method.

   *  Identify a relevant pacing rhythm:






Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


      -  The server estimates the pacing rhythm using saved_rtt and
         saved_bb.  The Inter-packet Transmission Time (ITT) is
         determined by the ratio between the current Maximum Message
         Size (MMS) and the ratio between the saved_bb and saved_rtt.  A
         tunable safety margin can avoid sending more than a recommended
         maximum IW (recom_iw):

         o  current_iw = min(recom_iw,saved_bb)

         o  ITT = MSS/(current_iw/saved_rtt)

      -  When the successful receipt of the IW data is acknowledged, the
         server returns to a standard slow-start mechanism.

   *  Tune slow-start mechanisms: After transport parameters are set to
      a previously estimated bottleneck bandwidth, if the slow-start
      mechanisms continue, the sender can then overshoot the bottleneck
      capacity.  This can occur even when using the safety check
      described in this section.

      -  For NewReno and CUBIC, it is recommended to exit slow-start and
         enter the congestion avoidance phase.

      -  For BBR, it is recommended to enter the "probe bandwidth"
         state.

   This follows the idea presented in [RFC4782],
   [I-D.irtf-iccrg-sallantin-initial-spreading] and [CONEXT15].

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Gabriel Montenegro, Patrick McManus,
   Ian Swett, Igor Lubashev, Robin Marx, Roland Bless and Franklin Simo
   for their fruitful comments on earlier versions of this document.

8.  IANA Considerations

   TBD: Text is required to register the BDP Frame and the enable_bdp
   transport parameter.  Parameters are registered using the procedure
   defined in [RFC9000].

9.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for QUIC are discussed in Section 6

   The client can send information related to the saved_rtt and saved_bb
   to the server with the BDP Frame extension using either Rationale #2
   - Solution #2 or Rationale #2 - Solution #3.  However, the server



Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   SHOULD NOT trust the client.  Indeed, even if 0-RTT packets
   containing the BDP Frame are encrypted, a client could modify the
   values within the extension and encrypt the 0-RTT packet.
   Authentication mechanisms might not guarantee that the values are
   safe.  It is not an easy operation for a client to modify
   authenticated or encrypted data without this being detected by a
   server.  Modification could be realized by malicious clients.  One
   way to avoid this is for a server to also store the saved_rtt and
   saved_bb parameters.

   A malicious client might modify the saved_bb parameter to convince
   the server to use a larger CWND than appropriate.  Using the
   algorithms proposed in Section 6, the server may reduce any intended
   harm and can check that part of the information provided by the
   client are valid.

   Storing the BDP parameters locally at the server reduces the
   associated risks by allowing the client to transmit information
   related to the BDP of the path in the case of a malicious client
   trying to break the encryption mechanism that it had received.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4782]  Floyd, S., Allman, M., Jain, A., and P. Sarolahti, "Quick-
              Start for TCP and IP", RFC 4782, DOI 10.17487/RFC4782,
              January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4782>.

   [RFC6349]  Constantine, B., Forget, G., Geib, R., and R. Schrage,
              "Framework for TCP Throughput Testing", RFC 6349,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6349, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6349>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.




Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.

   [RFC9002]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
              and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
              May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9002>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [CONEXT15] Li, Q., Dong, M., and P B. Godfrey, "Halfback: Running
              Short Flows Quickly and Safely", ACM CoNEXT , 2015.

   [I-D.cardwell-iccrg-bbr-congestion-control]
              Cardwell, N., Cheng, Y., Yeganeh, S. H., Swett, I., and V.
              Jacobson, "BBR Congestion Control", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-cardwell-iccrg-bbr-congestion-
              control-02, 7 March 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cardwell-iccrg-bbr-
              congestion-control-02.txt>.

   [I-D.irtf-iccrg-sallantin-initial-spreading]
              Sallantin, R., Baudoin, C., Arnal, F., Dubois, E., Chaput,
              E., and A. Beylot, "Safe increase of the TCP's Initial
              Window Using Initial Spreading", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-iccrg-sallantin-initial-
              spreading-00, 15 January 2014,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-iccrg-
              sallantin-initial-spreading-00.txt>.

   [IJSCN]    Thomas, L., Dubois, E., Kuhn, N., and E. Lochin, "Google
              QUIC performance over a public SATCOM access",
              International Journal of Satellite Communications and
              Networking 10.1002/sat.1301, 2019.

   [MAPRG111] Kuhn, N., Stephan, E., Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., and C.
              Huitema, "Feedback from using QUIC's 0-RTT-BDP extension
              over SATCOM public access", IETF 111 - MAPRG meeting ,
              2022.

   [RFC5783]  Welzl, M. and W. Eddy, "Congestion Control in the RFC
              Series", RFC 5783, DOI 10.17487/RFC5783, February 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5783>.







Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   [RFC8867]  Sarker, Z., Singh, V., Zhu, X., and M. Ramalho, "Test
              Cases for Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive
              Real-Time Media", RFC 8867, DOI 10.17487/RFC8867, January
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8867>.

   [RFC9040]  Touch, J., Welzl, M., and S. Islam, "TCP Control Block
              Interdependence", RFC 9040, DOI 10.17487/RFC9040, July
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9040>.

Appendix A.  Implementation Considerations

A.1.  Rationale behind the different implementation options

   The NewSessionTickets message of TLS can offer a solution.  The
   proposal is to add a 'bdp_metada' field in the NewSessionTickets,
   which the client is able to read.  The only extension currently
   defined in TLS1.3 that can be seen by the client is
   max_early_data_size (see Section 4.6.1 of [RFC8446]).  However, in
   the general design of QUIC, TLS sessions are managed by a TLS stack.

   Three distinct approaches are presented: sending an opaque blob to
   the client that the client may return to the server when establishing
   a future new connection (see Appendix A.3), enabling local storage of
   the BDP infromation (see Appendix A.2) and a BDP Frame extension (see
   Appendix A.4).

A.2.  Independent Local Storage of Values

   This approach independently lets both a client and a server store
   their BDP parameters:

   *  During a 1-RTT session, the endpoint stores the RTT (as the
      saved_rtt) and bottleneck bandwidth (as the saved_bb) together in
      the session resume ticket.  The client can also store the IP
      address of the server;

   *  The server maintains a table of previously issued tickets, indexed
      by the random ticket identifier that is used to guarantee
      uniqueness of the Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data
      (AEAD) encryption.  Old tokens are removed from the table using
      the Least Recently Used (LRU) logic.  For each ticket identifier,
      the table holds the RTT and bottleneck bandwidth (i.e. saved_rtt
      and saved_bb), and also the IP address of the client (i.e.
      saved_client_ip).







Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   During the 0-RTT session, the local endpoint waits for the first RTT
   measurement from the remote endpoint IP address.  This is used to
   verify that the current_rtt has not significantly changed from the
   saved_rtt (used as an indication that the BDP information is
   appropriate for the current path).

   If this RTT is confirmed, the endpoint also verifies that an IW of
   data has been acknowledged without requiring retransmission or
   resulting in an ECN CE-mark.  This second check detects whether a
   path is experiencing significant congestion (i.e., where it would not
   be safe to update the cwnd based on the saved_bb).  In practice, this
   could be realized by a proportional increase in the cwnd, where the
   increase is (saved_bb/IW)*proportion_of_IW_currently-ACKed.

   This solution does not allow a client to request the server not to
   use the BDP parameters.  If the server does not want to store the
   metrics from previous connections, an equivalent of the
   tcp_no_metrics_save for QUIC may be necessary.  This option could be
   negotiated that allows a client to choose whether to use the saved
   information.

A.3.  Using NEW_TOKEN frames

   A server can send a NEW_TOKEN Frame to the client.  The token is an
   opaque (encrypyted) blob and the client can not read its content (see
   section 19.7 of [RFC9000]).  The client sends the received token in
   the header of an Initial packet of a later connection.

A.4.  BDP Frame

   Using BDP Frames, the server could send information relating to the
   path characteristics to the client.  The use of the BDP Frame is
   negotiated with the client.  The client can read its content.  If the
   client agrees with the usage of previous session parameters, it can
   send the BDP Frame back to the server in an Initial packet of a later
   connection.

Authors' Addresses

   Nicolas Kuhn
   Thales Alenia Space
   Email: nicolas.kuhn.ietf@gmail.com


   Emile Stephan
   Orange
   Email: emile.stephan@orange.com




Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        Carefully Resume QUIC Session             May 2022


   Godred Fairhurst
   University of Aberdeen
   Department of Engineering
   Fraser Noble Building
   Aberdeen
   Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk


   Tom Jones
   University of Aberdeen
   Department of Engineering
   Fraser Noble Building
   Aberdeen
   Email: tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk


   Christian Huitema
   Private Octopus Inc.
   Email: huitema@huitema.net
































Kuhn, et al.             Expires 7 November 2022               [Page 21]