Hi Eric, In general I would advise not assuming the findings for studies focused on Google QUIC will apply to IETF QUIC. While many findings may apply, they are different protocols with different designs, and any research done on Google QUIC most likely focused on a single implementation (the Chromium implementation). Even within a single standard (IETF QUIC), we expect there are going to be different experimental results depending on implementations studied [1]. As such I would say right now it's best to rely on research conducted on IETF QUIC, rather than trying to transform results previously obtained for Google QUIC.
All the best, Matt Joras [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342783300_Same_Standards_Different_Decisions_A_Study_of_QUIC_and_HTTP3_Implementation_Diversity On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 2:43 PM Feltgen, Eric <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear QUIC working group, > > I am a CS student at RWTH Aachen University currently researching papers on > the performance of QUIC in the context of a seminar. In the past years, there > have been many papers on this topic testing many different versions of > Google's QUIC. Over the years, many changes have been made to the protocol > and the implementation at Google. > > In order to understand which results are comparable to the standardized > version of QUIC (RFC 9000), it would be helpful to which changes have been > made in the last years of the Google version and how the last QUIC versions > by Google compare to the QUIC standard. In my research so far, I found out > that forward error correction has been removed from the Google version a > couple of years ago. So my question is whether there are any breaking changes > that have been made in the development of the IETF standard which could > result in different behaviour. > > Thank you in advance for any response! It would help a lot to understand the > development stop of the QUIC standard within the last years. > > Best regards, > > Eric Feltgen >
