QUIC B. Trammell, Ed.
Internet-Draft P. De Vaere
Intended status: Informational ETH Zurich
Expires: June 3, 2018 R. Even
Huawei
G. Fioccola
Telecom Italia
T. Fossati
Nokia
M. Ihlar
Ericsson
A. Morton
AT&T Labs
E. Stephan
Orange
November 30, 2017
The Addition of a Spin Bit to the QUIC Transport Protocol
draft-trammell-quic-spin-00
Abstract
This document summarizes work to date on the addition of a "spin
bit", intended for explicit measurability of end-to-end RTT on QUIC
flows. It proposes a detailed mechanism for the spin bit, describes
how to use it to measure end-to-end latency, discusses corner cases
and workarounds therefor in the measurement, describes experimental
evaluation of the mechanism done to date, and examines the utility
and privacy implications of the spin bit. As the overhead and risk
associated with the spin bit are negligible, and the utility of a
passive RTT measurement signal at higher resolution than once per
flow is clear, this document advocates for the addition of the spin
bit to the protocol.
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
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
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 June 3, 2018.
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
(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. About This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Spin Bit Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Proposed Short Header Format Including Spin Bit . . . . . 4
3. Using the Spin Bit for Passive RTT Measurement . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Limitations and Workarounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Alternate RTT Measurement Approaches for Diagnosing QUIC
flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Experimental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Use Cases for Passive RTT Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Interdomain Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Privacy and Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The QUIC transport protocol [QUIC-TRANS] is a UDP-encapsulated
protocol integrated with Transport Layer Security (TLS) [TLS] to
encrypt most of its protocol internals, beyond those handshake
packets needed to establish or resume a TLS session, and information
required to reassemble QUIC streams (the packet number) and to route
QUIC packets to the correct machine in a load-balancing situation
(the connection ID). In other words, in contrast to TCP, QUIC's wire
image (see [WIRE-IMAGE]) exposes much less information about
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
transport protocol state than TCP's wire image. Specifically, the
fact that sequence and acknowledgement numbers and timestamps cannot
be seen by on-path observes in QUIC as they can be in the TCP means
that passive TCP loss and latency measurement techniques that rely on
this information (e.g. [CACM-TCP], [TMA-QOF]) cannot be easily
ported to work with QUIC.
This document proposes a solution to this problem by adding a
"latency spin bit" to the QUIC short header. This bit is designed
solely for explicit passive measurability of the protocol. It
provides one RTT sample per RTT to passive observers of QUIC traffic.
It describes the mechanism, how it can be added to QUIC, and how it
can be used by passive measurement facilities to generate RTT
samples. It explores potential corner cases and shortcomings of the
mechanism and how they can be worked around. It summarizes
experimental results to date with an implementation of the spin bit
built atop a recent QUIC implementation. It additionally describes
use cases for passive RTT measurement at the resolution provided by
the spin bit. It further reviews findings on privacy risk researched
by the QUIC RTT Design Team, which was tasked by the IETF QUIC
Working Group to determine the risk/utility tradeoff for the spin
bit.
The spin bit has low overhead, presents negligible privacy risk, and
has clear utility in providing passive RTT measurability of QUIC that
is far superior to QUIC's measurability without the spin bit, and
equivalent to or better than TCP passive measurability.
1.1. About This Document
This document is maintained in the GitHub repository
https://github.com/britram/draft-trammell-quic-spin, and the editor's
copy is available online at https://britram.github.io/draft-trammell-
quic-spin. Current open issues on the document can be seen at
https://github.com/britram/draft-trammell-quic-spin/issues. Comments
and suggestions on this document can be made by filing an issue
there, or by contacting the editor.
2. The Spin Bit Mechanism
The latency spin bit enables latency monitoring from observation
points on the network path. The bit is set by the endpoints in the
following way:
o The server sets the spin bit value to the value of the spin bit in
the packet received from the client with the largest packet
number.
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
o The client sets the spin bit value to the opposite of the value
set in the packet received from the server with the largest packet
number, or to 0 if no packet as been received yet.
If packets are delivered in order, this procedure will cause the spin
bit to change value in each direction once per round trip.
Observation points can estimate the network latency by observing
these changes in the latency spin bit, as described in Section 3.
2.1. Proposed Short Header Format Including Spin Bit
Since it is possible to measure handshake RTT without a spin bit (see
Section 3.2), it is sufficient to include the spin bit in the short
packet header. This proposal suggests to ues the second most
significant bit (0x40) of the first octet in the short header for the
spin bit.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|S|C|K|Type(4)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ [Connection ID (64)] +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Number (8/16/32) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protected Payload (*) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Short Header Format including proposed Spin Bit
This will shift the Connection ID flag and the Key Phase Bit to 0x20
and 0x10 respectively, and will limit the number of available short
packet types to 16.
3. Using the Spin Bit for Passive RTT Measurement
When a QUIC flow is sending at full rate (i.e., neither application
nor flow control limited), the latency spin bit in each direction
changes value once per round-trip time (RTT). An on-path observer
can observe the time difference between edges in the spin bit signal
to measure one sample of end-to-end RTT. Note that this measurement,
as with passive RTT measurement for TCP, includes any transport
protocol delay (e.g., delayed sending of acknowledgements) and/or
application layer delay (e.g., waiting for a request to complete).
It therefore provides devices on path a good instantaneous estimate
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
of the RTT as experienced by the application. A simple linear
smoothing or moving minimum filter can be applied to the stream of
RTT information to get a more stable estimate.
We note that the Latency Spin Bit, and the measurements that can be
done with it, can be seen as an end-to-end extension of a special
case of the alternate marking method described in [ALT-MARK].
3.1. Limitations and Workarounds
Application-limited and flow-control-limited senders can have
application and transport layer delay, respectively, that are much
greater than network RTT. Therefore, the spin bit provides network
latency information only when the sender is neither application nor
flow control limited. When the sender is application-limited by
periodic application traffic, where that period is longer than the
RTT, measuring the spin bit provides information about the
application period, not the RTT. Simple heuristics based on the
observed data rate per flow or changes in the RTT series can be used
to reject bad RTT samples due to application or flow control
limitation.
Since the spin bit logic at each endpoint considers only samples on
packets that advance the largest packet number seen, signal
generation itself is resistent to reordering. However, reordering
can cause problems at an observer by causing spurious edge detection
and therefore low RTT estimates. This can be probabilistically
mitigated by the observer tracking the low-order bits of the packet
number, and rejecting edges that appear out-of-order.
3.2. Alternate RTT Measurement Approaches for Diagnosing QUIC flows
There are two broad alternatives to explicit signaling for passive
RTT measurement for measuring the RTT experienced by QUIC flows.
The first of these is handshake RTT measurement. As described in
[QUIC-MGT], the packets of the QUIC handshake are distinguishable on
the wire in such a way that they can be used for one RTT measurement
sample per flow: the delay between the client initial and the server
cleartext packet can be used to measure "upstream" RTT (between the
observer and the server), and the delay between the server cleartext
packet and the next client cleartext packet can be used to measure
"downstream" RTT (between the client and the observer). When RTT
measurements are used in large aggregates (all flows traversing a
large link, for example), a methodology based on handshake RTT could
be used to generate sufficient samples for some purposes without the
spin bit.
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
However, this methodology would rely on the assumption that the
difference between handshake RTT and nominal in-flow RTT is
negligible. Specifically, (1) any additional delay required to
compute any cryptographic parameters must be negligible with respect
to network RTT; (2) any additional delay required to establish state
along the path must be negligible with respect to network RTT; and
(3) network treatment of initial packets in a flow must identical to
that of later packets in the flow. When these assumptions cannot be
shown to hold, spin-bit based RTT measurement is preferable to
handshake RTT measurement, even for applications for which handshake
RTT measurement would otherwise be suitable.
The second alternative is parallel active measurement: using ICMP
Echo Request and Reply [RFC0792] [RFC4433], a dedicated measurement
protocol like TWAMP [RFC5357], or a separate diagnostic QUIC flow to
measure RTT. Regardless of protocol, the active measurement must be
initiated by a client on the same network as the client of the QUIC
flow(s) of interest, or a network close by in the Internet topology,
toward the server. Note that there is no guarantee that ICMP flows
will receive the same network treatment as the flows under study,
both due to differential treatment of ICMP traffic and due to ECMP
routing (see e.g. [TOKYO-PING]). TWAMP and QUIC diagnostic flows,
though both use UDP, have similar issues regarding ECMP. However, in
situations where the entity doing the measurement can guarantee that
the active measurement traffic will traverse the subpaths of interest
(e.g. residential access network measurement under a network
architecture and business model where the network operator owns the
CPE), active measurement can be used to generate RTT samples at the
cost of at least two non-productive packets sent though the network
per sample.
3.3. Experimental Evaluation
We have evaluated the effectiveness of the spin bit in an emulated
network environment. The spin bit was added to a fork of [MINQ],
using the mechanism described in Section 2, but with the spin bit
appearing in a measurement byte added to the header for passive
measurability experiments. Spin bit measurement support was added to
[MOKUMOKUREN]. Full results of these ongoing experiments are
available online in [SPINBIT-REPORT], but we summarize our findings
here.
First, we confirm that the spin bit works as advertised: it provides
one useful RTT sample per RTT to any passive observer of the flow.
This sample tracks each sender's local instantaneous estimate of RTT
as well as the expected RTT (i.e., defined by the emulation) fairly
well. One surprising implication of this is that the spin bit
provides _more_ information than is available by local estimation to
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
an endpoint which is mostly receiving data frames and sending mainly
ACKs, and as such can also be useful in purely endpoint-local
observations of the RTT evolution during the flow. The spin bit also
works correctly under moderate to heavy packet loss and jitter.
Second, we confirm that the spin bit can be easily implemented
without requiring deep integration into a QUIC implementation.
Indeed, it could be implemented completely independently, as a shim,
aside from the requirement that the spin bit value be integrity-
protected along with the rest of the QUIC header.
Third, we performed experiments focused on the intermittent-sender
problem described in Section 3.1. We confirm that the spinbit does
not provide useful RTT samples after the handshake when packets are
only sent intermittently. Simple heuristics can be used to recognize
this situation, however, and to reject these RTT samples. We also
find that a simple sender-side heuristic can be used to determine
whether a sample will be useful. If a sender sends a packet more
than a specified delay (e.g. 1ms) after the last packet received by
the client, it knows that any latency spin observation of that packet
will be invalid. If a second "spin valid" bit were available, the
sender could then mark that packet "spin invalid". Our experiments
show that this simple heuristic and spin validity bit are succesful
in marking all packets whose RTT samples should be rejected.
Fourth, we performed experiments focused on the reordering problem
described in Section 3.1. We find that while reordering can cause
spurious samples at a naive observer, two simple approaches can be
used to reject spurious RTT samples due to reordering. First, a two-
bit spin signal that always advances in a single direction (e.g. 00
-> 01 -> 10 -> 11) successfully rejects all reordered samples,
including under amounts of reordering that render the transport
itself mostly useless. However, adding a bit is not necessary:
having the observer keep the least significant bits of the packet
number, and rejecting samples from packets that do not advance by
one, as suggested in Section 3.1, is essentially as successful as a
two-bit spin signal in mitigating the effects of reordering on RTT
measurement.
Fifth, we performed parallel active measurements using ping, as
described in Section 3.2. In our emulated network, the ICMP packets
and the QUIC packets traverse the same links with the same treatment,
and share queues at each link, which mitigates most of the issues
with ping. We find that while ping works as expected in measuring
end-to-end RTT, it does not track the sender's estimate of RTT, and
as such does not measure the RTT experienced by the application layer
as well as the spin bit does.
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
In summary, our experiments show that the spin bit is suitable for
purpose, can be implemented with minimal disruption, and that most of
the problems identified with it in specific corner cases can be
easily mitigated. See [SPINBIT-REPORT] for more.
4. Use Cases for Passive RTT Measurement
This section describes use cases for passive RTT measurement. Most
of these are currently achieved with TCP, i.e., the matching of
packets based on sequence and acknowledgment numbers, or timestamps
and timestamp echoes, in order to generate upstream and downstream
RTT samples which can be added to get end-to-end RTT. These use
cases could be achieved with QUIC by replacing sequence/
acknowledgement and timestamp analysis with spin bit analysis, as
described in Section 3.
This section currently focuses one initial use case, interdomain
troubleshooting. Additional use cases will be added in future
revisions; see https://github.com/britram/draft-trammell-spin-bit/
issues for use cases we are currently considering.
In any case, the measurement methodology follows one of a few basic
variants:
o The RTT evolution of a flow or a set of flows can be compared to
baseline or expected RTT measurements for flows with the same
characterisitcs in order to detect or localize latency issues in a
specific network.
o The RTT evolution of a single flow can also be examined in detail
to diagnose performance issues with that flow.
o The spin bit can be used to generate a large number of samples of
RTT for a flow aggregate (e.g., all flows between two given
networks) without regard to temporal evolution of the RTT, in
order to examine the distribution of RTTs for a group of flows
that should have similar RTT (e.g., because they should share the
same path(s)).
4.1. Interdomain Troubleshooting
Network access providers are often the first point of contact by
their customers when network problems impact the performance of
bandwidth-intensive and latency-sensitive applications such as video,
regardless of whether the root cause lies within the access
provider's network, the service provider's network, on the Internet
paths between them, or within the customer's own network.
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
Many residential networks use WiFi (802.11) on the last segment, and
WiFi signal strength degradation manifests in high first-hop delay,
due to the fact that the MAC layer will retransmit packets lost at
that layer. Measuring the RTT between endpoints on the customer
network and parts of the service provider's own infrastructure (which
have predictable delay characteristics) can be used to isolate this
cause of performance problems.
Comparing the evolution of passively-measured RTTs between a customer
network and selected other networks on the Internet to short- and
medium-term baseline measurements can similarly be used to isolate
high latency to specific networks or network segments. For example,
if the RTTs of all flows to a given content provider increase at the
same time, the problem likely exists between the access network and
the content provider, or in the content provider's network itself.
On the other hand, if the RTTs of all flows passing through the same
access provider infrastructure change together, then the change is
likely attributable to that infrastructure.
These measurements are particularly useful for traffic which is
latency sensitive, such as interactive video applications. However,
since high latency is often correlated with other network-layer
issues such as chronic interconnect congestion [IMC-CONGESTION], it
is useful for general troubleshooting of network layer issues in an
interdomain setting.
In this case, multiple RTT samples per flow are useful less for
observing intraflow behavior, and more for generating sufficient
samples for a given aggregate to make a high-quality measurement.
5. Privacy and Security Considerations
The privacy considerations for the latency spin bit are essentially
the same as those for passive RTT measurement in general.
A concern was raised during the discussion of this feature within the
QUIC working group and the QUIC RTT Design Team that high-resolution
RTT information might be usable for geolocation. However, an
evaluation based on RTT samples taken over 13,780 paths in the
Internet from RIPE Atlas anchoring measurements [TRILAT] shows that
the magnitude and uncertainty of RTT data render the resolution of
geolocation information that can be derived from Internet RTT is
limited to national- or continental-scale; i.e., less resolution than
is generally available from free, open IP geolocation databases.
One reason for the inaccuracy of geolocation from network RTT is that
Internet backbone transmission facilities do not follow the great-
circle path between major nodes. Instead, major geographic features
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
and the efficiency of connecting adjacent major cities influence the
facility routing. An evaluation of ~3500 measurements on a mesh of
25 backbone nodes in the continental United States shows that 85% had
RTT to great-circle error of 3ms or more, making location within US
State boundaries ambigous [CONUS].
Therefore, in the general case, when an endpoint's IP address is
known, RTT information provides negligible additional information.
RTT information may be used to infer the occupancy of queues along a
path; indeed, this is part of its utility for performance measurement
and diagnostics. When a link on given path has excessive buffering
(on the order of hundreds of milliseconds or more; a situation
colloquially referred to as "bufferbloat"), such that the difference
in delay between an empty queue and a full queue dwarfs normal
variance and RTT along the path, RTT variance during the lifetime of
a flow can be used to infer the presence of traffic on the bottleneck
link. In practice, however, this is not a concern for passive
measurement of congestion-controlled traffic, since any observer in a
situation to observe RTT passively need not infer the presence of the
traffic, as it can observe it directly.
In addition, since RTT information contains application as well as
network delay, patterns in RTT variance from minimum, and therefore
application delay, can be used to infer or fingerprint application-
layer behavior. However, as with the case above, this is not a
concern with passive measurement, since the packet size and
interarrival time sequence, which is also directly observable,
carries more information than RTT variance sequence.
We therefore conclude that the high-resolution, per-flow exposure of
RTT for passive measurement as provided by the spin bit poses
negligible marginal risk to privacy.
As shown in Section 2, the spin bit can be implemented separately
from the rest of the mechanisms of the QUIC transport protocol, as it
requires no access to any state other than that observable in the
QUIC packet header itself. We recommend that implementations take
advantage of this property, to reduce the risk that a errors in the
implementation could leak private transport protocol state through
the spin bit.
Since the spin bit is disconnected from transport mechanics, a QUIC
endpoint implementing the spin bit that has a model of the actual
network RTT and a target RTT to expose can "lie" about its spin bit
transitions, even without coordination with and the collusion of the
other endpoint. This is not the case with TCP, which requires
coordination and collusion to expose false information via its
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
sequence and acknowledgment numbers and its timestamp option. When
passive measurement is used for purposes where one endpoint might
gain a material advantage by representing a false RTT, e.g. SLA
verification or enforcement of telecommunications regulations, this
situation raises a question about the trustworthiness of spin bit RTT
measurements.
This issue must be appreciated by users of spin bit information, but
mitigation is simple, as QUIC implementations designed to lie about
RTT through spin bit modification are subject to dynamic analysis
along paths with known RTTs. We consider the ease of verification of
lying in situations where this would be prohibited by regulation or
contract, combined with the consequences of violation of said
regulation or contract, to be a sufficient incentive in the general
case not to do it.
6. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Christian Huitema, who originally proposed the spin
bit as pull request 609 on [QUIC-TRANS]. Thanks to the QUIC RTT
Design Team for discussions leading especially to the measurement
limitations and privacy and security considerations sections.
This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture
for a Middleboxed Internet (MAMI), and by the Swiss State Secretariat
for Education, Research, and Innovation under contract no. 15.0268.
This support does not imply endorsement.
7. Informative References
[ALT-MARK]
Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L.,
Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid
performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-13 (work
in progress), October 2017.
[CACM-TCP]
Strowes, S., "Passively Measuring TCP Round-Trip Times (in
Communications of the ACM)", October 2013.
[CONUS] Morton, A., "Comparison of Backbone Node RTT and Great
Circle Distances (https://github.com/acmacm/FIXME-TBD)",
September 2017.
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
[IMC-CONGESTION]
Luckie, M., Dhamdhere, A., Clark, D., Huffaker, B., and k.
claffy, "Challenges in Inferring Internet Interdomain
Congestion (in Proc. ACM IMC 2014)", November 2014.
[MINQ] Rescorla, E., "MINQ, a simple Go implementation of QUIC
(https://github.com/ekr/minq)", November 2017.
[MOKUMOKUREN]
Trammell, B., "Mokumokuren, a lightweight flow meter using
gopacket (https://github.com/britram/mokumokuren)",
November 2017.
[QUIC-MGT]
Kuehlewind, M. and B. Trammell, "Manageability of the QUIC
Transport Protocol", draft-ietf-quic-manageability-01
(work in progress), October 2017.
[QUIC-TRANS]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-07 (work
in progress), October 2017.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC4433] Kulkarni, M., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv4
Dynamic Home Agent (HA) Assignment", RFC 4433,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4433, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4433>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[SPINBIT-REPORT]
De Vaere, P., "Latency Spinbit Implementation Experience",
November 2017.
[TLS] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-21 (work in progress),
July 2017.
[TMA-QOF] Trammell, B., Gugelmann, D., and N. Brownlee, "Inline Data
Integrity Signals for Passive Measurement (in Proc. TMA
2014)", April 2014.
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
[TOKYO-PING]
Pelsser, C., Cittadini, L., Vissicchio, S., and R. Bush,
"From Paris to Tokyo - On the Suitability of ping to
Measure Latency (ACM IMC 2014)", October 2014.
[TRILAT] Trammell, B., "On the Suitability of RTT Measurements for
Geolocation
(https://github.com/britram/trilateration/blob/paper-rev-
1/paper.ipynb)", August 2017.
[WIRE-IMAGE]
Trammell, B. and M. Kuehlewind, "The Wire Image of a
Network Protocol", draft-trammell-wire-image-00 (work in
progress), November 2017.
Authors' Addresses
Brian Trammell (editor)
ETH Zurich
Email: ietf@trammell.ch
Piet De Vaere
ETH Zurich
Email: piet@devae.re
Roni Even
Huawei
Email: roni.even@huawei.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Telecom Italia
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it
Thomas Fossati
Nokia
Email: thomas.fossati@nokia.com
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Spin Bit November 2017
Marcus Ihlar
Ericsson
Email: marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
Email: acmorton@att.com
Emile Stephan
Orange
Email: emile.stephan@orange.com
Trammell, et al. Expires June 3, 2018 [Page 14]