Re: QUIC(ker)

I'm interested in implementing this multiple channels for one xml stream thing 
in Monal.

-tmolitor



Am Donnerstag, 29. Januar 2026, 17:02:05 CET schrieb Dave Cridland:
> Hey all,
> 
> Some of you have heard me talk about this at the Summit, but I'd like to
> revisit/reexamine our QUIC binding to improve performance of XMPP on low
> bandwidth. I'm not sure we'll get to this at the Summit, and there's not
> many who want to talk about it so I wondered if this summit topic could
> have been an email. (Except then we discussed it anyway)
> 
> The primary concerns on low bandwidth - beyond sending fewer bytes on the
> wire - are round-trips and head-of-line blocking.
> 
> I think XMPP has a good story on round-trips; we're down to very few during
> authentication and connection setup, and during normal messaging operation
> we don't worry about latency at all.
> 
> Head-of-Line blocking, or HoL Blocking, is when - in our case - packet loss
> causes the stream to stall until the packet is retransmitted, which is at
> least a round-trip away - and can be more due to bandwidth-delay product.
> 
> At the same time, we cannot eliminate this entirely (by, say, sending
> stanzas over UDP directly) because if we do that we lose the ordering. Out
> of order messages can be confusing, and lead to bad misunderstandings.
> 
> The rules on this are in RFC 6120, and are rather more complicated than we
> normally worry about - normally, we just process everything on a strea, in
> order, and this does satisfy the rules. But the rules allow us to process
> stanzas in any order we like, as long as
> 
> So, what I'm thinking is a way to use the additional channels in QUIC such
> that we open multiple channels on both C2S and S2S sessions, which would
> form part of the same virtual stream, and we can distribute messages such
> that we maintain ordering within messages where we need to, but allows us
> to out-of-order (and avoid HOL Blocking) messages sent between unrelated
> jids.
> 
> This differs to the existing XEP, where each channel maps to a single XML
> Stream and XMPP session.
> 
> Notes from the Summit:
> WEBTRANS would also be of interest, but "raw" QUIC has some advantages as
> well, so we probably want both with a uniform approach.
> 
> So, my plan is to get an implementation together and a XEP.
> 
> Anyone else interested?
> 
> Dave.

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEN0CchbhrMgfxs4ncSg9KP3bcW1sFAml7kcAACgkQSg9KP3bc
W1s7+AgAg+dYu0IWjqzfDeNn/kz476LRsE/9LMuEJKyh+sZbD/+v8S3TkXxOtVRC
qwkdaC6p3xHmVtHycwuNrv4GGBGl6iyUhuiY127S0SQ+RJcS59kzMXvGmdDgFF2G
EaqxWxTlIfnvz7u0w2oJL6ftu/lji4t+cY3VVRhl/R779LoKWbLbN2thhkmidiQs
WHbkeCqLDVxCXw7ceWlXmc8m732XqvILuEhb7wJo5XgAt2bEvDnXSoa2SQIdD83H
fL8319rCq5aMQmBVGvS3q1ZmmtKULJJ3YSl1Dmd08OTnkNOoTeV6j2+DrrIrgSDo
wDn+EQFI4T2JXrJ6+ocRKabbhp+ubw==
=o1O+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----