Draft: draft-lmbdhk-quic-multipath

Commentary: Not sure to understand why the last part of the sentence is an issue . The use of zero - length connection IDs is problematic anyway in setups with NATs , for example . 
 I agree that in many deployments you want at least one CID from the client to server . Multiple packet numbers as currently defined however requires CIDs in both direction ; there is separate issue to discuss that . The next sentence also further explains that there might be other deployments though , e.g. in constraint networks , that might also benefit from saving the bits of the CID . This one sentence is of course only a very brief summary of the pros and cons of the different approach and more discussion is needed in the group . So I do n't expect to have this part in the draft like this when we finally publish it as RFC . Is there anything in the issue that we need to address now ? Or can we close this issue ? 
 Thanks ,  . That 's what I expected , but I do still think more elaboration is needed for this text to be useful . I would suggest to make this modification and leave the discussion of pros / cons to be adequately documented in Section 7 : OLD : This proposal supports the negotiation of either the use of one packet number space for all paths or the use of separate packet number spaces per path . While separate packet number spaces allow for more efficient ACK encoding , especially when paths have highly different latencies , this approach requires the use of a connection ID . Therefore use of a single number space can be beneficial in highly constrained networks that do not benefit from exposing the connection ID in the header . While both approaches are supported by the specification in this version of the document , the intention for the final publication of a multipath extension for QUIC is to choose one option in order to avoid incompatibility . More evaluation and implementation experience is needed to select one approach before final publication . Some discussion about pros and cons can be found here : NEW : This proposal supports the negotiation of either the use of one packet number space for all paths or the use of separate packet number spaces per path . While both approaches are supported by the specification in this version of the document , the intention for the final publication of a multipath extension for QUIC is to choose one option in order to avoid incompatibility . More evaluation and implementation experience is needed to select one approach before final publication . Some discussion about pros and cons can be found here : 
 You are suggesting to strike out the sentences that try to summarize the differences , " While separate packet number spaces allow for more efficient ACK encoding , especially when paths have highly different latencies , this approach requires the use of a connectionID . Therefore use of a single number space can be beneficial in highly constrained networks that do not benefit from exposing the connection ID in the header . " I think that 's a good idea . The sentences are a short summary of the arguments presented in the powerpoint , which are not limited to " highly constrained networks " . For example , the  browser , by default , uses NULL CID . I may be placing words in the mouth of Google developers , but I believe their goal is to reduce the overhead of the QUIC header compared to TCP / TLS . This is related to a general quest for performance , not to network constraints .
Endpoints negotiate the use of one packet number space for all paths
or separate packet number spaces per path during the connection
handshake nego.  While separate packet number spaces allow for more
efficient ACK encoding, especially when paths have highly different
latencies, this approach requires the use of a connection ID.
Therefore use of a single number space can be beneficial when
endpoints use zero-length connection ID for less overhead.