draft-ietf-quic-manageability-05.txt   draft-ietf-quic-manageability-06.txt 
Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational B. Trammell Intended status: Informational B. Trammell
Expires: January 6, 2020 Google Expires: 9 July 2020 Google
July 05, 2019 6 January 2020
Manageability of the QUIC Transport Protocol Manageability of the QUIC Transport Protocol
draft-ietf-quic-manageability-05 draft-ietf-quic-manageability-06
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses manageability of the QUIC transport protocol, This document discusses manageability of the QUIC transport protocol,
focusing on caveats impacting network operations involving QUIC focusing on caveats impacting network operations involving QUIC
traffic. Its intended audience is network operators, as well as traffic. Its intended audience is network operators, as well as
content providers that rely on the use of QUIC-aware middleboxes, content providers that rely on the use of QUIC-aware middleboxes,
e.g. for load balancing. e.g. for load balancing.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 July 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Features of the QUIC Wire Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Features of the QUIC Wire Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. QUIC Packet Header Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. QUIC Packet Header Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Coalesced Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Coalesced Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Use of Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Use of Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. The QUIC handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. The QUIC handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Integrity Protection of the Wire Image . . . . . . . . . 11 2.5. Integrity Protection of the Wire Image . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6. Connection ID and Rebinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.6. Connection ID and Rebinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7. Packet Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.7. Packet Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.8. Version Negotiation and Greasing . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.8. Version Negotiation and Greasing . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Network-visible information about QUIC flows . . . . . . . . 12 3. Network-visible information about QUIC flows . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Identifying QUIC traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1. Identifying QUIC traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.1. Identifying Negotiated Version . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.1. Identifying Negotiated Version . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.2. Rejection of Garbage Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.2. Rejection of Garbage Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Connection confirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2. Connection confirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Application Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3. Application Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Flow association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4. Flow association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5. Flow teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.5. Flow teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6. Flow symmetry measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.6. Flow symmetry measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.7. Round-Trip Time (RTT) Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.7. Round-Trip Time (RTT) Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.7.1. Measuring initial RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.7.1. Measuring initial RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.7.2. Using the Spin Bit for Passive RTT Measurement . . . 15 3.7.2. Using the Spin Bit for Passive RTT Measurement . . . 15
4. Specific Network Management Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Specific Network Management Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Stateful treatment of QUIC traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1. Stateful treatment of QUIC traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Passive network performance measurement and 4.2. Passive network performance measurement and
troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. Server cooperation with load balancers . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3. Server cooperation with load balancers . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4. DDoS Detection and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4. DDoS Detection and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5. Distinguishing acknowledgment traffic . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5. Distinguishing acknowledgment traffic . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6. QoS support and ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.6. QoS support and ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is a new transport protocol currently under QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is a new transport protocol currently under
development in the IETF QUIC working group, focusing on support of development in the IETF QUIC working group, focusing on support of
semantics as needed for HTTP/2 [QUIC-HTTP]. Based on current semantics as needed for HTTP/2 [QUIC-HTTP]. Based on current
deployment practices, QUIC is encapsulated in UDP and encrypted by deployment practices, QUIC is encapsulated in UDP and encrypted by
default. The current version of QUIC integrates TLS [QUIC-TLS] to default. The current version of QUIC integrates TLS [QUIC-TLS] to
encrypt all payload data and most control information. encrypt all payload data and most control information.
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
header are invariant for future versions of QUIC, although future header are invariant for future versions of QUIC, although future
versions of QUIC may provide additional fields in the long header versions of QUIC may provide additional fields in the long header
[QUIC-INVARIANTS]. [QUIC-INVARIANTS].
Short headers are used after connection establishment, and contain Short headers are used after connection establishment, and contain
only an optional destination connection ID and the spin bit for RTT only an optional destination connection ID and the spin bit for RTT
measurement. measurement.
The following information is exposed in QUIC packet headers: The following information is exposed in QUIC packet headers:
o demux bit: the second most significant bit of the first octet * demux bit: the second most significant bit of the first octet
every QUIC packet of the current version is set to 1, for every QUIC packet of the current version is set to 1, for
demultiplexing with other UDP-encapsulated protocols. demultiplexing with other UDP-encapsulated protocols.
o latency spin bit: the third most significant bit of first octet in * latency spin bit: the third most significant bit of first octet in
the short packet header. The spin bit is set by endpoints such the short packet header. The spin bit is set by endpoints such
that tracking edge transitions can be used to passively observe that tracking edge transitions can be used to passively observe
end-to-end RTT. See Section 3.7.2 for further details. end-to-end RTT. See Section 3.7.2 for further details.
o header type: the long header has a 2 bit packet type field * header type: the long header has a 2 bit packet type field
following the Header Form bit. Header types correspond to stages following the Header Form bit. Header types correspond to stages
of the handshake; see Section 17.2 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. of the handshake; see Section 17.2 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT].
o version number: the version number present in the long header, and * version number: the version number present in the long header, and
identifies the version used for that packet. Note that during identifies the version used for that packet. Note that during
Version Negotiation (see Section 2.8, and Section 17.2.1 of Version Negotiation (see Section 2.8, and Section 17.2.1 of
[QUIC-TRANSPORT], the version number field has a special value [QUIC-TRANSPORT], the version number field has a special value
(0x00000000) that identifies the packet as a Version Negotiation (0x00000000) that identifies the packet as a Version Negotiation
packet. packet.
o source and destination connection ID: short and long packet * source and destination connection ID: short and long packet
headers carry a destination connection ID, a variable-length field headers carry a destination connection ID, a variable-length field
that can be used to identify the connection associated with a QUIC that can be used to identify the connection associated with a QUIC
packet, for load-balancing and NAT rebinding purposes; see packet, for load-balancing and NAT rebinding purposes; see
Section 4.3 and Section 2.6. Long packet headers additionally Section 4.3 and Section 2.6. Long packet headers additionally
carry a source connection ID. The source connection ID carry a source connection ID. The source connection ID
corresponds to the destination connection ID the source would like corresponds to the destination connection ID the source would like
to have on packets sent to it, and is only present on long packet to have on packets sent to it, and is only present on long packet
headers. On long header packets, the length of the connection IDs headers. On long header packets, the length of the connection IDs
is also present; on short header packets, the length of the is also present; on short header packets, the length of the
destination connection ID is implicit. destination connection ID is implicit.
o length: the length of the remaining QUIC packet after the length * length: the length of the remaining QUIC packet after the length
field, present on long headers. This field is used to implement field, present on long headers. This field is used to implement
coalesced packets during the handshake (see Section 2.2). coalesced packets during the handshake (see Section 2.2).
o token: Initial packets may contain a token, a variable-length * token: Initial packets may contain a token, a variable-length
opaque value optionally sent from client to server, used for opaque value optionally sent from client to server, used for
validating the client's address. Retry packets also contain a validating the client's address. Retry packets also contain a
token, which can be used by the client in an Initial packet on a token, which can be used by the client in an Initial packet on a
subsequent connection attempt. The length of the token is subsequent connection attempt. The length of the token is
explicit in both cases. explicit in both cases.
Retry and Version Negotiation packets are not encrypted or obfuscated Retry and Version Negotiation packets are not encrypted or obfuscated
in any way. For other kinds of packets, other information in the in any way. For other kinds of packets, other information in the
packet headers is cryptographically obfuscated: packet headers is cryptographically obfuscated:
o packet number: Most packets (with the exception of Version * packet number: Most packets (with the exception of Version
Negotiation and Retry packets) have an associated packet number; Negotiation and Retry packets) have an associated packet number;
however, this packet number is encrypted, and therefore not of use however, this packet number is encrypted, and therefore not of use
to on-path observers. The offset of the packet number is encoded to on-path observers. The offset of the packet number is encoded
in the header for packets with long headers, while it is implicit in the header for packets with long headers, while it is implicit
(depending on Destination Connection ID length) in short header (depending on Destination Connection ID length) in short header
packets. The length of the packet number is cryptographically packets. The length of the packet number is cryptographically
obfuscated. obfuscated.
o key phase: The Key Phase bit, present in short headers, specifies * key phase: The Key Phase bit, present in short headers, specifies
the keys used to encrypt the packet, supporting key rotation. The the keys used to encrypt the packet, supporting key rotation. The
Key Phase bit is cryptographically obfuscated. Key Phase bit is cryptographically obfuscated.
2.2. Coalesced Packets 2.2. Coalesced Packets
Multiple QUIC packets may be coalesced into a UDP datagram, with a Multiple QUIC packets may be coalesced into a UDP datagram, with a
datagram carrying one or more long header packets followed by zero or datagram carrying one or more long header packets followed by zero or
one short header packets. When packets are coalesced, the Length one short header packets. When packets are coalesced, the Length
fields in the long headers are used to separate QUIC packets. The fields in the long headers are used to separate QUIC packets. The
length header field is variable length and its position in the header length header field is variable length and its position in the header
skipping to change at page 8, line 25 skipping to change at page 8, line 25
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
| QUIC long header (type = Initial, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length) | QUIC long header (type = Initial, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length)
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| QUIC CRYPTO frame header | | | QUIC CRYPTO frame header | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| TLS Client Hello (incl. TLS SNI) | | | TLS Client Hello (incl. TLS SNI) | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| QUIC PADDING frame | | | QUIC PADDING frame | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+<-+ +----------------------------------------------------------+<-+
Figure 2: Typical 1-RTT QUIC Client Hello datagram pattern Figure 2: Typical 1-RTT QUIC Client Hello datagram pattern
The Client Hello datagram exposes version number, source and The Client Hello datagram exposes version number, source and
destination connection IDs, and information in the TLS Client Hello destination connection IDs, and information in the TLS Client Hello
message, including any TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) present, in message, including any TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) present, in
the clear. The QUIC PADDING frame shown here may be present to the clear. The QUIC PADDING frame shown here may be present to
ensure the Client Hello datagram has a minimum size of 1200 octets, ensure the Client Hello datagram has a minimum size of 1200 octets,
to mitigate the possibility of handshake amplification. Note that to mitigate the possibility of handshake amplification. Note that
the location of PADDING is implementation-dependent, and PADDING the location of PADDING is implementation-dependent, and PADDING
frames may not appear in the Initial packet in a coalesced packet. frames may not appear in the Initial packet in a coalesced packet.
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
+------------------------------------------------------------+<-+ +------------------------------------------------------------+<-+
| QUIC long header (type = Handshake, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length) | QUIC long header (type = Handshake, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length)
+------------------------------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| encrypted payload (presumably CRYPTO frames) | | | encrypted payload (presumably CRYPTO frames) | |
+------------------------------------------------------------+<-+ +------------------------------------------------------------+<-+
| QUIC short header | | QUIC short header |
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1-RTT encrypted payload | | 1-RTT encrypted payload |
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Typical QUIC Server Hello datagram pattern Figure 3: Typical QUIC Server Hello datagram pattern
The Server Hello datagram exposes version number, source and The Server Hello datagram exposes version number, source and
destination connection IDs, and information in the TLS Server Hello destination connection IDs, and information in the TLS Server Hello
message. message.
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP header (source and destination UDP ports) | | UDP header (source and destination UDP ports) |
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
| QUIC long header (type = Initial, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length) | QUIC long header (type = Initial, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length)
+------------------------------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------------------------------+ |
skipping to change at page 9, line 47 skipping to change at page 9, line 47
+------------------------------------------------------------+<-+ +------------------------------------------------------------+<-+
| QUIC long header (type = Handshake, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length) | QUIC long header (type = Handshake, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length)
+------------------------------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| encrypted payload (presumably CRYPTO/ACK frames) | | | encrypted payload (presumably CRYPTO/ACK frames) | |
+------------------------------------------------------------+<-+ +------------------------------------------------------------+<-+
| QUIC short header | | QUIC short header |
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1-RTT encrypted payload | | 1-RTT encrypted payload |
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Typical QUIC Initial Completion datagram pattern Figure 4: Typical QUIC Initial Completion datagram pattern
The Initial Completion datagram does not expose any additional The Initial Completion datagram does not expose any additional
information; however, recognizing it can be used to determine that a information; however, recognizing it can be used to determine that a
handshake has completed (see Section 3.2), and for three-way handshake has completed (see Section 3.2), and for three-way
handshake RTT estimation as in Section 3.7. handshake RTT estimation as in Section 3.7.
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP header (source and destination UDP ports) | | UDP header (source and destination UDP ports) |
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
| QUIC long header (type = Handshake, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length) | QUIC long header (type = Handshake, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length)
+------------------------------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| encrypted payload (presumably ACK frame) | | | encrypted payload (presumably ACK frame) | |
+------------------------------------------------------------+<-+ +------------------------------------------------------------+<-+
| QUIC short header | | QUIC short header |
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1-RTT encrypted payload | | 1-RTT encrypted payload |
+------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Typical QUIC Handshake Completion datagram pattern Figure 5: Typical QUIC Handshake Completion datagram pattern
Similar to Initial Completion, Handshake Completion also exposes no Similar to Initial Completion, Handshake Completion also exposes no
additional information; observing it serves only to determine that additional information; observing it serves only to determine that
the handshake has completed. the handshake has completed.
When the client uses 0-RTT connection resumption, 0-RTT data may also When the client uses 0-RTT connection resumption, 0-RTT data may also
be seen in the QUIC Client Hello datagram, as shown in Figure 6. be seen in the QUIC Client Hello datagram, as shown in Figure 6.
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP header (source and destination UDP ports) | | UDP header (source and destination UDP ports) |
skipping to change at page 10, line 40 skipping to change at page 10, line 40
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| QUIC CRYPTO frame header | | | QUIC CRYPTO frame header | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| TLS Client Hello (incl. TLS SNI) | | | TLS Client Hello (incl. TLS SNI) | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+<-+ +----------------------------------------------------------+<-+
| QUIC long header (type = 0RTT, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length) | QUIC long header (type = 0RTT, Version, DCID, SCID) (Length)
+----------------------------------------------------------+ | +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| 0-rtt encrypted payload | | | 0-rtt encrypted payload | |
+----------------------------------------------------------+<-+ +----------------------------------------------------------+<-+
Figure 6: Typical 0-RTT QUIC Client Hello datagram pattern Figure 6: Typical 0-RTT QUIC Client Hello datagram pattern
In a 0-RTT QUIC Client Hello datagram, the PADDING frame is only In a 0-RTT QUIC Client Hello datagram, the PADDING frame is only
present if necessary to increase the size of the datagram with 0RTT present if necessary to increase the size of the datagram with 0RTT
data to at least 1200 bytes. Additional datagrams containing only data to at least 1200 bytes. Additional datagrams containing only
0-RTT protected long header packets may be sent from the client to 0-RTT protected long header packets may be sent from the client to
the server after the Client Hello datagram, containing the rest of the server after the Client Hello datagram, containing the rest of
the 0-RTT data. The amount of 0-RTT protected data is limited by the the 0-RTT data. The amount of 0-RTT protected data is limited by the
initial congestion window, typically around 10 packets [RFC6928]. initial congestion window, typically around 10 packets [RFC6928].
2.5. Integrity Protection of the Wire Image 2.5. Integrity Protection of the Wire Image
skipping to change at page 12, line 12 skipping to change at page 12, line 12
may contain reserved versions. This mechanism is used to avoid may contain reserved versions. This mechanism is used to avoid
ossification in the implementation on the selection mechanism. ossification in the implementation on the selection mechanism.
Further, a client may send a Initial Client packet with a reserved Further, a client may send a Initial Client packet with a reserved
version number to trigger version negotiation. In the Version version number to trigger version negotiation. In the Version
Negotiation packet the connection ID and packet number of the Client Negotiation packet the connection ID and packet number of the Client
Initial packet are reflected to provide a proof of return- Initial packet are reflected to provide a proof of return-
routability. Therefore changing these information will also cause routability. Therefore changing these information will also cause
the connection to fail. the connection to fail.
QUIC is expected to evolve rapidly, so new versions, both
experimental and IETF standard versions, will be deployed in the
Internet more often than with traditional Internet- and transport-
layer protocols. Using a particular version number to recognize
valid QUIC traffic is likely to persistently miss a fraction of QUIC
flows and completely fail in the multi-year timeframe so therefore
not recommended.
3. Network-visible information about QUIC flows 3. Network-visible information about QUIC flows
This section addresses the different kinds of observations and This section addresses the different kinds of observations and
inferences that can be made about QUIC flows by a passive observer in inferences that can be made about QUIC flows by a passive observer in
the network based on the wire image in Section 2. Here we assume a the network based on the wire image in Section 2. Here we assume a
bidirectional observer (one that can see packets in both directions bidirectional observer (one that can see packets in both directions
in the sequence in which they are carried on the wire) unless noted. in the sequence in which they are carried on the wire) unless noted.
3.1. Identifying QUIC traffic 3.1. Identifying QUIC traffic
skipping to change at page 17, line 18 skipping to change at page 17, line 32
middlebox) is possible through QUIC traffic and version middlebox) is possible through QUIC traffic and version
identification (Section 3.1) and observation of the handshake for identification (Section 3.1) and observation of the handshake for
connection confirmation (Section 3.2). The lack of any visible end- connection confirmation (Section 3.2). The lack of any visible end-
of-flow signal (Section 3.5) means that this state must be purged of-flow signal (Section 3.5) means that this state must be purged
either through timers or through least-recently-used eviction, either through timers or through least-recently-used eviction,
depending on application requirements. depending on application requirements.
The QUIC header optionally contains a Connection ID which can be used The QUIC header optionally contains a Connection ID which can be used
as additional entropy beyond the 5-tuple, if needed. The QUIC as additional entropy beyond the 5-tuple, if needed. The QUIC
handshake needs to be observed in order to understand whether the handshake needs to be observed in order to understand whether the
Connection ID is present and what length it has. Connection ID is present and what length it has. However, Connection
IDs may be renegotiated during a connection, and this renegotiation
is not visible to the path. Keying state off the Connection ID may
therefore cause undetectable and unrecoverable loss of state in the
middle of a connection. Use of Connection ID specifically
discouraged for NAT applications.
4.2. Passive network performance measurement and troubleshooting 4.2. Passive network performance measurement and troubleshooting
Limited RTT measurement is possible by passive observation of QUIC Limited RTT measurement is possible by passive observation of QUIC
traffic; see Section 3.7. No passive measurement of loss is possible traffic; see Section 3.7. No passive measurement of loss is possible
with the present wire image. Extremely limited observation of with the present wire image. Extremely limited observation of
upstream congestion may be possible via the observation of CE upstream congestion may be possible via the observation of CE
markings on ECN-enabled QUIC traffic. markings on ECN-enabled QUIC traffic.
4.3. Server cooperation with load balancers 4.3. Server cooperation with load balancers
skipping to change at page 19, line 45 skipping to change at page 20, line 28
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[Ding2015] [Ding2015] Ding, H. and M. Rabinovich, "TCP Stretch Acknowledgments
Ding, H. and M. Rabinovich, "TCP Stretch Acknowledgments
and Timestamps - Findings and Impliciations for Passive and Timestamps - Findings and Impliciations for Passive
RTT Measurement (ACM Computer Communication Review)", July RTT Measurement (ACM Computer Communication Review)", July
2015, <http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/ 2015, <http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/
papers/2015/July/0000000-0000002.pdf>. papers/2015/July/0000000-0000002.pdf>.
[IPIM] Allman, M., Beverly, R., and B. Trammell, "In-Protocol [IPIM] Allman, M., Beverly, R., and B. Trammell, "In-Protocol
Internet Measurement (arXiv preprint 1612.02902)", Internet Measurement (arXiv preprint 1612.02902)", 9
December 2016, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.02902>. December 2016, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.02902>.
[QUIC-APPLICABILITY] [QUIC-APPLICABILITY]
Kuehlewind, M. and B. Trammell, "Applicability of the QUIC Kuehlewind, M. and B. Trammell, "Applicability of the QUIC
Transport Protocol", draft-ietf-quic-applicability-04 Transport Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
(work in progress), April 2019. draft-ietf-quic-applicability-05, 5 July 2019,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-
applicability-05.txt>.
[QUIC-HTTP] [QUIC-HTTP]
Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3 Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-20 (work in progress), (HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
April 2019. quic-http-24, 4 November 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-http-24.txt>.
[QUIC-INVARIANTS] [QUIC-INVARIANTS]
Thomson, M., "Version-Independent Properties of QUIC", Thomson, M., "Version-Independent Properties of QUIC",
draft-ietf-quic-invariants-04 (work in progress), April Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-
2019. invariants-07, 11 September 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-invariants-07.txt>.
[QUIC-TLS] [QUIC-TLS] Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC",
Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-tls-24,
draft-ietf-quic-tls-20 (work in progress), April 2019. 3 November 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-quic-tls-24.txt>.
[QUIC-TRANSPORT] [QUIC-TRANSPORT]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-20 (work and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
in progress), April 2019. draft-ietf-quic-transport-24, 3 November 2019,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-
transport-24.txt>.
[RFC6066] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC6066] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.
[RFC6928] Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis, [RFC6928] Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
"Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928, "Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6928, April 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6928, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6928>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6928>.
skipping to change at page 21, line 9 skipping to change at page 21, line 45
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan, [RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301, Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>. July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
[RFC7605] Touch, J., "Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport [RFC7605] Touch, J., "Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport
Port Numbers", BCP 165, RFC 7605, DOI 10.17487/RFC7605, Port Numbers", BCP 165, RFC 7605, DOI 10.17487/RFC7605,
August 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7605>. August 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7605>.
[TLS-ESNI] [TLS-ESNI] Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. Wood,
Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. Wood, "Encrypted Server Name Indication for TLS 1.3", Work in
"Encrypted Server Name Indication for TLS 1.3", draft- Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-esni-05, 4
ietf-tls-esni-03 (work in progress), March 2019. November 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
ietf-tls-esni-05.txt>.
[TMA-QOF] Trammell, B., Gugelmann, D., and N. Brownlee, "Inline Data [TMA-QOF] Trammell, B., Gugelmann, D., and N. Brownlee, "Inline Data
Integrity Signals for Passive Measurement (in Proc. TMA Integrity Signals for Passive Measurement (in Proc. TMA
2014)", April 2014. 2014)", April 2014.
[WIRE-IMAGE] [WIRE-IMAGE]
Trammell, B. and M. Kuehlewind, "The Wire Image of a Trammell, B. and M. Kuehlewind, "The Wire Image of a
Network Protocol", RFC 8546, DOI 10.17487/RFC8546, April Network Protocol", RFC 8546, DOI 10.17487/RFC8546, April
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8546>. 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8546>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mirja Kuehlewind Mirja Kuehlewind
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com
Brian Trammell Brian Trammell
Google Google
Gustav-Gull-Platz 1 Gustav-Gull-Platz 1
8004 Zurich CH- 8004 Zurich
Switzerland Switzerland
Email: ietf@trammell.ch Email: ietf@trammell.ch
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
60 lines changed or deleted 79 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/