search

intarchboard / draft-protocol-greasing

Other
2 stars 2 forks source link

Greasing considerations to endpoint features #3

Open chris-wood opened 1 year ago

chris-wood commented 1 year ago

In my mind, greasing is currently defined with respect to protocol features, with something like the QUIC spin bit being one obvious example. However, the concepts and motivations behind greasing can also extend to endpoint features themselves, such as deciding whether or not to use QUIC at all in the first place. The Privacy Pass specification applies this pattern, wherein client implementations can choose to provide tokens when asked or not (according to some local grease implementation behavior). If we believe that greasing extends to features in this way, should the document talk about it, and if so, what should it say?

LPardue commented 1 month ago

@chris-wood @tfpauly maybe this idea extends to e.g. happy eyeballs v3?

LPardue commented 1 month ago

Seems to me we could fit some text in https://intarchboard.github.io/draft-protocol-greasing/draft-edm-protocol-greasing.html#section-4 so would happily review a proposal

tfpauly commented 1 month ago

Yeah the privacy pass example works well for section 4, and I think we could talk about happy eyeballs-like client-side algorithms changing their timing and rules to make sure networks don't ossify around particular behaviors.