Internet DRAFT - draft-amend-iccrg-multipath-reordering
draft-amend-iccrg-multipath-reordering
ICCRG Working Group M. Amend
Internet-Draft D. von Hugo
Intended status: Experimental DT
Expires: 28 April 2022 25 October 2021
Multipath sequence maintenance
draft-amend-iccrg-multipath-reordering-03
Abstract
This document discusses the issue of packet reordering which occurs
as a specific problem in multi-path connections without reliable
transport protocols such as TCP. The topic is relevant for devices
connected via multiple accesses technologies towards the network as
is foreseen, e.g., within Access Traffic Selection, Switching, and
Splitting (ATSSS) service of 3rd Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) enabling fixed mobile converged (FMC) scenario.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 April 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Scheduling mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Resequencing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Exact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Static Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Adaptive Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. Delay Equalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.6. Fast Packet Loss Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6.1. Connection sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6.2. Per-path sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6.3. Combination connection and per-path sequencing . . . 10
6. Recovery mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. FEC (Forward Error Correction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Network Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Retransmission mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Anticipated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3. Flow-selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.4. Other re-transmission issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Mobile end user devices nowadays are mostly equipped with multiple
network interfaces allowing to connect to more than one network at a
time and thus increase data throughput, reliability, coverage, and so
on. Ideally the user data stream originating from the application at
the device is split between the available (here: N) paths at the
sender side and re-assembled at an intermediate aggregation node
before transmitted to the corresponding host in the network as
depicted in Figure 1.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
------------
/ \
+---------| Access Net 1 |--+
| \ / |
| ------------- |
| ------------ |
| / \ |
| +------| Access Net 2 |-+ |
| | \ / | |
| | ------------ | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | +-------+-+---+
+--+-+-+ | | +------+
|End | | Aggregation +----/.../--| Host |
|User | | Node | +------+
|Device| | |
+--+-+-+ +-------+-+---+
| | | |
| | -------------- | |
| | / \ | |
| +---| Access Net N-1 |--+ |
| \ / |
| -------------- |
| |
| ------------ |
| / \ |
+--------| Access Net N |---+
\ /
------------
Figure 1: Reference Architecture for multi-path reordering
However, when several paths are utilized concurrently to transmit
user data between the sender and the receiver, different
characteristics of the paths in terms of bandwidth, delay, or error
proneness can impact the overall performance due to delayed packet
arrival and need for re-transmit in case of lost packets. Without
further arrangements the original order of packets at the sending UE
side is no longer maintained at the receiving host and a reordering
or re-arrangement has to occur before delivery to the application at
the far end site. This can be performed at earliest at the
aggregation node with a minimum additional delay due to re-
transmission requests or at latest either by the application on the
host itself or the transmission protocol.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
It is a goal of the present document to collect and describe
mechanisms to maintain the sequence of split traffic over multiple
paths. These mechanisms are generic and not dedicated to a specific
multipath network protocol, but give clear guidance on requirements
and benefits to maintainers of multipath network protocols.
2. State of the Art
Regular TCP protocol [RFC0793] offers such mechanism with queues for
in-order and out-of order (including damaged, lost, duplicated)
arrival of packets.
This is also provided by MPTCP [RFC8684] as the first and successful
Multipath protocol which however also requires new methods as
sequence numbers both on (whole) data (stream) and subflow level to
ensure in-order delivery to the application layer on the receiver
side [RFC8684]. Moreover, careful design of buffer sizes and
interpretation of sequence numbers to distinguish between (delayed)
out-of-order packets and completely lost ones has to be considered.
[I-D.bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers] already reflects on proper packet
scheduling schemes (at the sender side) to reduce the effort for re-
assembly or even make such (time consuming) treatment unnecessary.
MP-QUIC [I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath] introduces the concept of
uniflows with own IDs claiming to get rid of additional sequence
numbers for reordering as required in Multipath TCP [RFC8684].
Although [I-D.liu-multipath-quic] admits that statistical performance
information should help a host in deciding on optimum packet
scheduling and flow control a dedicated packet scheduling policy is
out of scope of that document. A further improvement versus MPTCP
can be achieved by decoupling paths used for data transmission from
those for sending acknowledgments (ACKs) or claiming for re-
transmission by NACKs to not introduce further latency.
[I-D.ietf-quic-recovery] specifies algorithms for QUIC Loss Detection
and Congestion Control by using measurement of Round Trip Time (RTT)
to determine when packets should be retransmitted. Draft
[I-D.huitema-quic-ts] proposes to enable one way delay (1WD)
measurements in QUIC by defining a TIME_STAMP frame to carry the time
at which a packet is sent and combine the ACKs sent with a timestamp
field and thus allow for more precise estimation of the (one-way)
delay of each uniflow, assisting proper scheduling decisions.
Also other protocols as Multi-Access Management Services (MAMS)
[RFC8743] consider the need for reordering on User Plane level which
may be done at network and client level by introducing a new Multi-
Access (MX) Convergence Layer. [I-D.zhu-intarea-mams-user-protocol]
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
introduces accordingly Traffic Splitting Update (TSU) messages and
Packet Loss Report (PLR) messages including beside others Traffic
Splitting Parameters and an expected next (in-order) sequence number,
respectively.
[I-D.zhu-intarea-gma] on Generic Multi-Access (GMA) Convergence
Encapsulation Protocols introduces a trailer-based encapsulation
which carries one or multiple IP packets or fragments thereof in a
Protocol Data Unit (PDU). At receiver side PDUs with identical
Sequence Numbers (in the trailer) are to be placed in the relative
order indicated by a so-called Fragment Offset.
3. Problem Statement
Assuming for simplicity the minimum multipath scenario with two
separate paths for transmission of a flow of packets with sequence
numbers (SN) SN1 ... SM. In case the scheduling of packets is done
equally to both paths and path 2 exhibits a delay of the duration of
transmission time required for, e.g., two packets (assuming fixed
packet size and same constant data for both paths) for an exemplary
App-originated sequence of packets as SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4 SN5 SN6 SN7 SN8
... the resulting sequence of packets could look as depicted in
Figure 2 which of course depends on the queue processing and
buffering at the Aggregation Proxy.
APP UE Aggregation Node Host
| SN1 ... SN8 | | |
|-------------->|path 1 SN1 SN3 SN5 SN7...| |
| |------------------------>| |
| |path 2 SN2 SN4 SN6 SN8...| |
| |------------------------>| |
| | |SN1 SN3 SN2 SN5 SN4 SN7|
| | |======================>|
| | | |
Figure 2: Exemplary data transmission for a dual-path scenario
In such a case reordering at the Aggregation Node would be simple and
straight forward. It even could be avoided if the scheduling would
already take the expected different delays into account (e.g. by pre-
delaying the traffic on path 1 thus of course not leveraging the
lower delay). Different from this simplistic scenario in general the
data rate on both paths will vary in time and be not equal, also
different and variable latency (jitter) per path will be introduced
and in addition loss of packets as well as potential duplication may
occur making the situation much more complicated. In case of loss
detection after a threshold waiting time a retransmission could be
initiated by the Host or if possible already by the Aggregation Node.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
Alternatively the UE could send redundant packets in advance coded in
such a way that it allows for derivation of, e.g., one lost packet
per M correctly received ones or by a (real-time) application able to
survive singular lost packets.
Holding multiple queues and a large enough buffer both at UE and at
the Aggregation Node would be required to apply proper scheduling at
UE and reordering during re-assembly at Aggregation Node to mitigate
the sketched impact of multiple paths' variable characteristics in
terms of transmission performance.
...
4. Scheduling mechanisms
Scheduling mechanisms decide on sender side how traffic is
distributed over the paths of a multipath-setup.
[I-D.bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers] gives an overview of possible
distribution schemes. For this document it is assumed, that
schedulers are used, which simultaneously distribute traffic over
more than one path, whereas path characteristics differ between those
multiple paths (e.g. a latency difference exists). While on the one
hand, the traffic scheduling causes out-of-order multipath delivery
when simultaneously utilize heterogeneous paths, it can also be used
to mitigate this problem. Pre-delaying data on a fast path,
according to the latency difference of the slowest path is aimed,
e.g., by OTIAS [OTIAS], DAPS [DAPS], and BLEST [BLEST]. However, the
success is much dependent on the accuracy of path information like
path latency, throughput, and packet loss rate. In heterogeneous and
volatile environments most often such information have to be
estimated, e.g., using congestion control. That means, it takes at
least one RTT to gain first indications and probably several RTTs to
converge to a worthwhile accuracy. Changes of path characteristics
in sub-RTT time frames put such a system to test. Dependent on the
demand on in-order delivery and/or the accuracy of the relevant path
information, scheduling might be an exclusive alternative or can be
applied in conjunction with other discussed mechanisms in this
document.
[AOPS] proposes to use a predictive Adaptive Order Prediction
Scheduling (AOPS) mechanism considering both the anticipated time of
packet delivery and the reliability of each path to optimize the
traffic scheduling for MP-DCCP, thus coping with reordering and
achieving in-order delivery.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
Scheduling will not help to overcome any degree of out-of-order
delivery, when the scheduling goal is different to this. For example
a strict cost prioritization of Wi-Fi over cellular access in a
mobile phone might be assumed counterproductive.
5. Resequencing mechanisms
Resequencing mechanisms are responsible to modify the sequence of
received data split over multiple paths according to a sequencing
scheme. The degree of resequencing can reach from no measure up to
re-generating the exact order.
Typically at least one sequencing scheme, describing the order of how
data was generated on sender side is prerequisite. This is referred
to as "connection sequencing". Under certain circumstances an
additional sequencing scheme per path of the multi-path setup can be
leveraged, to optimize packet loss detection and is further
elaborated in Section 5.6. For most multipath protocols both
sequencing schemes are already available. Packet loss detection
becomes important when multipath protocols are applied which do not
guarantee successful transmission as TCP achieves by acknowledgement
of successful reception. For example,
[I-D.amend-tsvwg-multipath-dccp] or the combination of
[I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath] and [I-D.ietf-quic-datagram] are
unreliable protocols in that sense.
For simplicity all the mechanism described in the following are
explained based on two paths but in principle would work with any
other amount though.
5.1. Passive
This approach includes no active change or reordering at the
transport level and purely re-combines the packet flows incoming from
both paths as is. All modification of the resulting sequence of
packets is left to the application at the end node. Here no
processing delay is added due to the resequencing but since no early
packet loss detection with subsequent re-transmission request on
transport level is possible the risk of a larger delay due to late
loss detection at the application will arise in case of lossy
connections.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
5.2. Exact
This approach covers all mechanisms which attempt to re-generate the
original order of packets in the flow exactly, independent of the
expected or resulting delay due to waiting time for all packets on
all paths to arrive. In case of unreliable transport protocols this
may result in a large delay due to Head-of-Line blocking and for
actual packet loss in a remaining packet gap which causes a stand
still without an option to recover. For applications demanding near
real-time delivery of packets it should not be applied.
5.3. Static Expiration
This method to detect and decide on packet loss assumes a certain
fixed time threshold for the gap between packets within a sequence
after re-combination of both paths. A possible re-transmission -
either in the multipath system internally or based on the piggybacked
protocol/service - will possibly not be requested before this
threshold is exceeded. Thus an additional delay in the overall
latency budget will occur so that this simple approach is only
recommended for non-time critical applications. Every packet loss or
simultaneous transmission of data over the short and long latency
path will cause spikes in the service perceived latency.
5.4. Adaptive Expiration
Here the packet gap is assumed as packet loss after exceeding a
flexibly decided on time threshold which may be derived dynamically
from the differences between latencies both paths exhibit. As the
latency may vary due to propagation conditions or routing paths this
latency difference has to be monitored and statistically evaluated
(smoothed) which introduces additional effort. A possible solution
for this is the determination of the the one way latency as described
in [I-D.song-mptcp-owl] or sending available RTT information from the
sender from which the receiver can calculate the latency difference.
5.5. Delay Equalization
This is an ordering mechanism which delays data forwarding on the
faster path by the latency difference to the slower path. Ideally
the resequencing effort on the aggregated packet flow can be greatly
reduced up to no resequencing at all. Due to time variation in path
delays (jitter) and delay differences and the required time for
decision and feedback on the delay, some re-sequencing still remains
to be executed. Similar to Section 5.4, explicit knowledge of the
latency difference is required. Strictly speaking this method allows
to avoid resequencing based on sequencing information. However, the
overall delay may be larger since the advantage of the short-delay
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
path is not exploited. In combination with Section 5.3 or
Section 5.4 resequencing can be added with a presumably lower
resequencing effort to scenarios without delay equalization. The
essence is a in-order stream with a unified latency across the
multiple paths.
5.6. Fast Packet Loss Detection
The following sections describe methods to achieve unambiguous
detection of packet loss independent from thresholds in Section 5.3
or Section 5.4. Furthermore, packet loss can be differentiated from
delayed delivery. The benefit is a much faster decision plane based
on monitoring the sequence space of consecutive packets. For that,
the sequencing coming along with the receiver based re-sequencing is
further leveraged. Two sequencing schemes are considered here, the
connection and the per-path sequencing.
5.6.1. Connection sequencing
Connection sequencing marks the outgoing packets in the order they
enter the multipath system and is independent from a particular
selected path for transmission. After arrival at the aggregation
node the lowest packet sequence number at each of the multiple paths
is compared the that of the last correctly received packet. When the
numbers are not consecutive (i.e., when on all paths a higher number
is received than the next expected in-order packet), an overall
packet loss is detected. While only a single comparison of packet
numbers has to be performed and the out-of-order arrival on a single
path can be partly compensated this scheme does not allow for
immediate detection of where reordering happens.
5.6.2. Per-path sequencing
Per-path sequencing is a path inherent sequencing mechanism valid in
the particular path domain only. In this case the packets are marked
by path-specific sequence numbers at the sender side and at each
interface of the aggregation node the sequence numbers of arriving
packets are compared on per-path level. When a higher sequence
number is received than the one which is waited for (next expected
in-order packet), a packet loss for this specific path is declared.
This may prevent partly misinterpretation of out-of-order arrival as
packet loss and allow for path specific countermeasures towards
overall performance improvement, as, e.g., chosing a more robust
transmission technique for this path.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
5.6.3. Combination connection and per-path sequencing
While the benefits from the individual sequencing schemes above can
be combined, a further benefit crystallizes. Since the out-of-order
arrival is detected on per-path basis, the path specific out-of-order
delivery rate can be used as a criterion to choose repair parameters
on a per-path basis (which thus may work more efficiently). In
addition the decision on the path selection and weighting can be made
based on this criterion. Thus an improved overall performance can be
achieved in this case. [to be checked/continued...]
6. Recovery mechanisms
Recovering packets, in particular lost packets or assumed lost
packets on receiver side avoids re-transmission and potentially
mitigates the resequencing process in respect to detecting packet
loss. Shorter latencies will be an expected outcome. Discussing the
complexity, computation overhead and reachable benefit is subject of
this section.
6.1. FEC (Forward Error Correction)
This approach is based on introduction of redundancy to user data to
detect errors and subsequently reconstruct data in case of a limited
number of bit or Byte errors. As such packet with corrupted data can
be recovered up to a certain degree but in case of a too high bit
error rate (BER) a packet is completely lost. However, in
combination with scrambling, i.e. the sequence of original data
stream is distributed over multiple packets and re-compiled
afterwards also data from lost packets could be recovered. As such
methods introduce additional delay and overhead it is mainly applied
in case of long re-transmission delays as, e.g., is typical for
satellite transmission. FEC can be applied to each path separately
(e.g., if they exhibit deviating performance characteristics to not
degrade the 'better one') or in an overall FEC fashion before split
and recombination which would support scrambling and facilitate
recovery of completely lost packets on the 'worse path'.
Unsuccessful application of FEC may enable quick detection of
unrecoverable errors in a packet and thus trigger re-transmission
from the sender side before time-out.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
6.2. Network Coding
In linear network coding (LNC) network nodes (or interfaces of a
device) do not simply relay the packets of information they receive,
but combine several packets together for transmission. After
reception of combined and separate packets the maximum possible
information flow in a network can be detected and throughput,
efficiency and scalability, as well as resilience to attacks and
eavesdropping can be improved. The method in general improves with
the number of paths in excess of two. According to [COPE] drawbacks
of LNC are high decoding computational complexity, high transmission
overhead, and linear dependency among coefficients vectors for en-
and decoding. Triangular network coding (TNC) addresses the high
encoding and decoding computational complexity without degrading the
throughput performance, with code rate comparable to that of LNC.
TNC is therefore advantageous for implementation on small devices
mobile phones and wireless sensors with limited processing capability
and power supply [TNC].
7. Retransmission mechanisms
Re-transmission becomes interesting when it can help to reduce the
time spent on waiting for outstanding packets for re-sequencing. In
particular scenarios when for example a known path RTT (Round Trip
Time) lets expect a shorter time to re-transmit than wait for packet
loss detection, a likely scenario in, e.g., Figure 1. It could also
avoid a potential late triggering of re-transmission by the end-to-
end service. On the other hand for sake of resource efficiency the
amount of unnecessary retransmissions should be limited to not
degrade the overall throughput of the connection.
7.1. Signaling
In case of detected packet loss the receiver has to send a
corresponding signalling message to the sender to re-transmit a
missing packet. This is the traditional way of negative
acknowledgement in case of missing the correct reception of packets
within a time window and sending a repeat-request. This approach
requires a send buffer which keeps information for a reasonable time,
thus allowing the beneficial use of this mechanism. On the other
hand the additional delay in terms of at least once the RTT until the
lost packet is correctly received results in performance degradation
for time-critical applications. ... [to be continued?]
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
7.2. Anticipated
To speed up the induced re-transmission delay a pro-active or
anticipated approach would allow to trigger the sender to re-transmit
data without needing to wait for notification from the receiver.
This method can be applied when the assumed packet loss can be
estimated based on other data, e.g., from lower layer, such as
information on path or
link quality degradation derived from, e.g., an increased raw BER
detected by FEC mechanism (see Section 6.1).
[to be continued/extended?]
7.3. Flow-selection
Repeating data on the same path is not always useful. In some
scenarios it makes sense to re-transmit data on another path, e.g.,
when the original path is broken or another path is known to provide
higher throughput or lower packet loss. To apply such a selection of
the flow for re-transmission.
* Requires path independent identification of data, e.g., the
connection sequencing
* Has to consider MTU discrepancies between paths
Flow selection for re-transmitting data can be combined with
detection mechanisms as described in Section 7.1 or Section 7.2.
7.4. Other re-transmission issues
In certain scenarios data to be re-transmitted can be duplicated
across paths (either in advance or after loss detection) to increase
reliability and reduce potential overall transmission delay.
However, such approaches decrease the resource efficiency and reduce
the overall user throughput. A more pro-active measure would
be to encode multiple packets either on per-path or on per-connection
basis in a single 'repair packet' in 'XOR style' to be injected after
a set of packets (similarly as described in [COPE]. This would allow
to recreate exactly one lost packet out of the set in case the others
have been correctly received. Depending on the anticipated loss rate
the amount of packets within a set is chosen to more efficiently use
the transmission resources. [to be continued]
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
8. Security Considerations
This document does not add any additional security considerations in
addition to the ones introduced by multipath extensions to other
transmission protocols as, e.g., described for MPTCP in [RFC8684].
Also the described issues for GMA [I-D.zhu-intarea-gma], MP-DCCP
[I-D.amend-tsvwg-multipath-dccp], and MP-QUIC
[I-D.liu-multipath-quic] may apply here.
9. Informative References
[AOPS] Huang, C., Chen, Y., and S. Linn, "Packet scheduling and
congestion control schemes for Multipath Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol", The Computer Journal 58, no.
2, pp. 188--203 ] , February 2015.
[BLEST] Ferlin, S., Alay, Oe., Mehani, O., and R. Boreli, "BLEST:
Blocking estimation-based MPTCP scheduler for
heterogeneous networks", IFIP Networking Conference , May
2014,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IFIPNetworking.2016.7497206>.
[COPE] Katti, S., Rahul, H., Katabi, W.H.D., Medard, M., and J.
Crowcroft, "XORs in The Air: Practical Wireless Network
Coding", September 2006,
<http://nms.csail.mit.edu/~sachin/papers/copesc.pdf>.
[DAPS] Kuhn, N., Lochin, E., Mifdaoui, A., Sarwar, G., Mehani,
O., and R. Boreli, "DAPS: Intelligent delay-aware packet
scheduling for multipath transport", ICC IEEE
International Conference on Communications, June 2014,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2014.6883488>.
[I-D.amend-tsvwg-multipath-dccp]
Amend, M., Hugo, D. V., Brunstrom, A., Kassler, A.,
Rakocevic, V., and S. Johnson, "DCCP Extensions for
Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-amend-tsvwg-multipath-
dccp-05, 12 July 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-amend-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-05.txt>.
[I-D.bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers]
Bonaventure, O., Piraux, M., Coninck, Q. D., Baerts, M.,
Paasch, C., and M. Amend, "Multipath schedulers", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bonaventure-iccrg-
schedulers-02, 25 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bonaventure-iccrg-
schedulers-02.txt>.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
[I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath]
Coninck, Q. D. and O. Bonaventure, "Multipath Extensions
for QUIC (MP-QUIC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-deconinck-quic-multipath-07, 3 May 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-deconinck-quic-
multipath-07.txt>.
[I-D.huitema-quic-ts]
Huitema, C., "Quic Timestamps For Measuring One-Way
Delays", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-huitema-
quic-ts-06, 12 September 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-huitema-quic-ts-
06.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-datagram]
Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
Datagram Extension to QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-quic-datagram-06, 5 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-quic-datagram-
06.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-recovery]
Iyengar, J. and I. Swett, "QUIC Loss Detection and
Congestion Control", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-quic-recovery-34, 14 January 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-quic-recovery-
34.txt>.
[I-D.liu-multipath-quic]
Liu, Y., Ma, Y., Huitema, C., An, Q., and Z. Li,
"Multipath Extension for QUIC", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-liu-multipath-quic-04, 5 September
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-
multipath-quic-04.txt>.
[I-D.song-mptcp-owl]
Song, F., Zhang, H., Chan, H. A., and A. Wei, "One Way
Latency Considerations for MPTCP", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-song-mptcp-owl-06, 18 June 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-song-mptcp-owl-
06.txt>.
[I-D.zhu-intarea-gma]
Zhu, J. and S. Kanugovi, "Generic Multi-Access (GMA)
Encapsulation Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-zhu-intarea-gma-12, 21 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-zhu-intarea-gma-
12.txt>.
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
[I-D.zhu-intarea-mams-user-protocol]
Zhu, J., Seo, S., Kanugovi, S., and S. Peng, "User-Plane
Protocols for Multiple Access Management Service", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zhu-intarea-mams-user-
protocol-09, 4 March 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-zhu-intarea-mams-
user-protocol-09.txt>.
[OTIAS] Yang, F., Wang, Q., and P.D. Amer, "Out-of-Order
Transmission for In-Order Arrival Scheduling for Multipath
TCP", AINAW 28th International Conference on Advanced
Information Networking and Applications Workshops, May
2014, <https://doi.org/10.1109/WAINA.2014.122>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC8684] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O., and C.
Paasch, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with
Multiple Addresses", RFC 8684, DOI 10.17487/RFC8684, March
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8684>.
[RFC8743] Kanugovi, S., Baboescu, F., Zhu, J., and S. Seo, "Multiple
Access Management Services Multi-Access Management
Services (MAMS)", RFC 8743, DOI 10.17487/RFC8743, March
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8743>.
[TNC] Qureshi, J., Foh, C.H., and J. Cai, "Optimal solution for
the index coding problem using network coding over GF(2)",
June 2012, <https://doi.org/10.1109/SECON.2012.6275780>.
Authors' Addresses
Markus Amend
Deutsche Telekom
Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 9
64295 Darmstadt
Germany
Email: Markus.Amend@telekom.de
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multipath sequence maintenance October 2021
Dirk von Hugo
Deutsche Telekom
Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 9
64295 Darmstadt
Germany
Email: dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Amend & von Hugo Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 16]
