Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
156 lines (127 loc) · 5.83 KB

wg-rg-relations.md

File metadata and controls

156 lines (127 loc) · 5.83 KB
Raw

Relationship to Other WGs and RGs

This is an expanded version of the section of a similar name in the proposed charter. We'll develop this here and then make the needed changes to the charter.

The objective here is to look at about a dozen other WGs and IRTF RGs and agree what our technical relationship with them is going to be.

Note that the current version of this note does not address interaction with other SDOs yet.

  • To do: find out whether there we envision such interaction with other SDOs.

Types of relationship

  • "watch": shared interests, but no specific exchange or mutual dependency envisioned now; could develop, though.
  • "import": specs that the other WG works on will be used by ours.
  • "export": we could do some work that would benefit that other WG.
  • "consult": actively obtain input from the other WG (for watching or importing).

Working groups, Research Groups

  • Name: TCPM, TSVWG, QUIC, AVTcore
  • Work: Transport protocol innovations
  • Issue in other group: What new transport protocol mechanisms provide benefits that cannot be had with a classical transport
  • Issue in LOOPS: Develop the retransmission part of LOOPS (as well as possibly the reconstruction/FEC part) based on these innovations
  • Type: Watch, potentially Import
  • Issue in LOOPS: Are there new interactions between the LOOPS "transport" elements and the innovations in the upper layer transport protocols?
  • Type: Watch
  • Name: TCPM
  • Work: RACK
  • Issue in other group: (from draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-08:) ... develop a new TCP loss detection algorithm called RACK ("Recent ACKnowledgment"). RACK uses the notion of time, instead of packet or sequence counts, to detect losses, for modern TCP implementations that can support per-packet timestamps and the selective acknowledgment (SACK) option. It is intended to be an alternative to the DUPACK threshold approach [RFC6675] ...
  • Issue in LOOPS: Does LOOPS need to rely on a sequence-preserving path for efficient loss detection, or can we use some of the RACK work for more time-based loss detection? How do we translate the TCP features used by RACK into features that are available in LOOPS?
  • Type: Watch, potentially Import
  • Name: MASQUE (WG to be, recent BOF 2020-03-24)
  • Work: Embedding proxied flows into QUIC and HTTP/3
  • Issue in other group: "Congestion Control over Congestion Control in case of UDP or IP proxying", i.e., when the proxied flows are UDP or IP (~ VPN), the interaction between end-to-end transport protocol control loops (congestion control) and the control loops run by QUIC
  • Issue in LOOPS: Does LOOPS need to perform specific work to mitigate issues stemming from nested congestion control? Note that the LOOPS segment is typically, but not always, significantly shorter than the end-to-end path, which might be similar in a MASQUE situation.
  • Type: Watch
  • Name: RMCAT, AVTcore
  • Work: Congestion control for media flows
  • Issue in LOOPS: Interactions between upper layer congestion control schemes in use for media and those in use on the LOOPS path segment
  • Type: Watch
  • Name: IPPM, TSVWG
  • Work: Formats and algorithms for measurement
  • Issue in LOOPS: What IPPM-defined formats and algorithms for measurement can we usefully import into the LOOPS measurement system
  • Type: potentially Import
  • To do: What came out of the draft-ietf-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback work?
  • Name: NVO3, INTAREA, SPRING/6MAN; NWCRG
  • Work: Tunnel encapsulation formats
  • Issue in LOOPS: We need to follow the homes of tunneling protocols to which bindings are being defined, which depending on the choices of the WG may include NVO3 (Geneve), intarea (GUE, GRE), spring/6man (SRv6). There also is some tunnel/encapsulation work done as part of NWCRG's work.
  • Type: Import, consult
  • Name: TSVWG
  • Work: Advanced ECN
  • Issue in other group: Agree on an approach for advanced ECN
  • Issue in LOOPS: LOOPS can benefit from ECN both in the end-to-end traffic and in the LOOPS segment. The protocol may need to anticipate the developments on advanced ECN and adjust its usage of both classic and advanced ECN. This may also influence how LOOPS makes use of RFC 6040 (Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification).
  • Type: Watch
  • Name: DETNET, RAW
  • Work: DETNET data plane, RAW, PREOF
  • Issue in other group: Define a data plane (encapsulation) for replicating, eliminating duplicates, and potentially reordering traffic (PREOF). RAW extends this work to wireless networks.
  • Issue in LOOPS: Can we integrate some of this work for retransmission and reconstruction?
  • Type: Watch, potentially import
  • Issue in LOOPS: Potentially (long term): Can we make some of the LOOPS components available in a way that is useful for DETNET and RAW?
  • Type: Export
  • Name: NWCRG (IRTF), TSVWG
  • Work: FEC formats and protocols
  • Issue in other group: Define forward error correction (FEC) formats that provide good robustness, low reconstruction latency, low implementation complexity, low CPU requirements, low overhead
  • Issue in LOOPS: How does the structure of these new formats and protocols influence the way LOOPS handles reconstruction?
  • To do: Watch the patent claim thickets in this space
  • Type: Watch, Import/Reference (specific schemes)
  • Name: MAPRG (IRTF), ICCRG (IRTF)
  • Work: Measurement, Congestion control
  • Issue in other group: Do leading edge work in this space
  • Issue in LOOPS: Benefit from that leading edge work
  • Type: Watch
  • Name: PANRG
  • Work: Path signaling
  • Issue in LOOPS: In the long run, discovering LOOPS instances along the path as well as path characteristics inside the LOOPS segment might get interesting.
  • Type: Watch, consult (at the right time)