From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [45.145.95.4])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2A583B29E;
 Wed, 20 Oct 2021 06:44:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023;
 t=1634726681; bh=qvJUNt1chBxdlvm7HV7ncDJYPowfCS3I+KSnluMTbdg=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=dQAEixZi80+69sPVPi2LWuspoh3RZqbwyTq7eRnRaV4bO4ETNKlmemfP+1rrHG+BA
 MSIrqb1dIO7RjUj2LuNBBUxcgBMz8gtjKY3AuzpRueWKY3uT6+l12fCR+zndTa2j92
 Mapivuzr3ggv2owH8XXwE8cyoVZvmbp9+bRvTpN4cj5LC1fSkkNnSxaPb21PWrYYuY
 atT9tVPRqa2rBC11WP8651LGoY9WxbEHCnfQUHr6nAPFIVT8xVvEb8bMjDsZiTJ+Wd
 B6WtsFBe/sDFGk1U6+XjEHbIAIAkUHkhEBAMv8VAWQw5KayHAdplH6EsC44S42QefM
 Xd/q9DrxQx8wg==
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
 Make-Wifi-fast <make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Keith Winstein
 <keithw@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <09884015-6428-4402-BE61-9091006D1FB8@ifi.uio.no>
References: <CAA93jw6Ktn3r413QYt3rA+B5aYFy=Ph359LtOoPEo+9buCtdbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4BD0AC02-62FB-4AE4-B83B-BAF5CCEA2B24@ifi.uio.no> <87lf2of2sl.fsf@toke.dk>
 <09884015-6428-4402-BE61-9091006D1FB8@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:44:40 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87ee8gf013.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Rpm] [Make-wifi-fast] tack - reducing acks on wlans
X-BeenThere: rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: revolutions per minute - a new metric for measuring responsiveness
 <rpm.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/rpm>,
 <mailto:rpm-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/rpm>
List-Post: <mailto:rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:rpm-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm>,
 <mailto:rpm-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:44:44 -0000

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>> On 20 Oct 2021, at 11:44, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@toke.dk=
> wrote:
>>=20
>> Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> 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?

MASQUE is proxying, right? Not quite sure if it's supposed to be also
MITM'ing the traffic? In any case, it would require clients to negotiate
a proxy session with the AP and trust it to do that properly? This may
work for a managed setup in an enterprise, but do you really expect me
to be OK with any random access point in a coffee shop being a MITM?

-Toke