From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out04.uio.no (mail-out04.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB2053CB43; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 06:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-mx11.uio.no ([129.240.10.83]) by mail-out04.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1md8bG-00Dnc4-TE; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:13:34 +0200 Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx11.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1md8bF-000G2n-PU; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:13:34 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Michael Welzl In-Reply-To: <87lf2of2sl.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:13:32 +0200 Cc: Dave Taht , Rpm , Make-Wifi-fast , Keith Winstein Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <09884015-6428-4402-BE61-9091006D1FB8@ifi.uio.no> References: <4BD0AC02-62FB-4AE4-B83B-BAF5CCEA2B24@ifi.uio.no> <87lf2of2sl.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx11.uio.no: 129.240.68.135 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=129.240.68.135; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=boomerang.ifi.uio.no; X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5) X-UiO-Scanned: 5B4BBB38F332F21F80AC74E576278B94B12A4600 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] tack - reducing acks on wlans X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:13:39 -0000 > On 20 Oct 2021, at 11:44, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >=20 > Michael Welzl writes: >=20 >> Am I being naive? Why can't such an ARQ proxy be deployed? Is it just >> because standardizing this negotiation is too difficult, or would it >> also be too computationally heavy for an AP perhaps, at high speeds? >=20 > Immediate thought: this won't work for QUIC .... as-is, true, though MASQUE is still being defined. Is this an = argument for defining it accordingly? > or other encrypted > transports (like VPNs). Correct. Cheers, Michael