Internet Engineering Task Force J. Arkko Internet-Draft Ericsson Intended status: Informational J. Tantsura Expires: May 3, 2018 Futurewei, Future Networks October 30, 2017 Low Latency Applications and the Internet Architecture draft-arkko-arch-low-latency-02 Abstract Some recent Internet technology developments relate to improvements in communications latency. For instance, improvements in radio communications or the recent work in IETF transport, security, and web protocols. There are also potential applications where latency would play a more significant role than it has traditionally been in the Internet communications. Modern networking systems offer many tools for building low-latency networks, from highly optimised individual protocol components to software controlled, virtualised and tailored network functions. This memo views the developments from a system viewpoint, and considers the potential future stresses that the strive for low-latency support for applications may bring. 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 May 3, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 (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. Applications with Special Focus on Low Latency . . . . . . . 3 3. Role of Low-Latency vs. Other Communications . . . . . . . . 4 4. Selected Improvements to Communications Latency . . . . . . . 5 5. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.1. Service Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.2. Edge Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.3. Routing and tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.4. Alternative Paths and Control Tension . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.5. Quality-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.6. Cross-Layer Optimisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Recommendations for Further Work . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Introduction Some recent Internet technology developments relate to improvements in communications latency. For instance, improvements in radio communications or the recent work in IETF transport, security, and web protocols. There are also potential applications where latency would play a more significant role than it has traditionally been in the Internet communications. New applications or technologies do not necessarily imply that latency should be the main driving concern, or that any further efforts are needed, beyond those already ongoing. Indeed, modern networking systems offer many tools for building low-latency networks, across the stack. At the IETF, for instance, there has been a recent increase in work related to transport, security, and web application protocols, in part to make significant improvements in latency and connection set-up times. Similar efforts for other Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 components of communications technology exist in 3GPP, IEEE, and other standards organisations. Despite a large number of specific developments, it may be interesting to view the developments from a system viewpoint, and to consider the potential future stresses that the strive for low- latency support applications may bring. The rest of this memo is organised as follows: Section 2 discusses potential applications for low-latency communications. Section 4 reviews some of the recent work across the stack, related to latency improvements. Finally, Section 5 discusses some of the implications (and non-implications) from an architectural perspective. 2. Applications with Special Focus on Low Latency Most Internet applications enjoy significant benefits from low- latency communications in the form of faster setup and response times as well as higher bandwidth communications enabled by transport protocol behaviour [RFC7323]. There are also potential applications where latency would play an even more significant role. For instance, embedding communications technology in automation or traffic systems, or consumer applications such as augmented or virtual reality where due to the human brain's perceptual limits variability in latency may not be feasible, i.e., render the service unusable due to motion sickness caused. Many of the Internet-of-Things and critical services use cases in 5G, for instance, have been listed as requiring low latency and high reliability for communications [ER2015] [HU2015] [NGMN2015] [NO2015] [QU2016] [IMT2020]. Some example use cases include optimisation of utility services such as electricity networks, connected automation systems in factories, remote control of machinery such as mining equipment, or embedded technology in road or railway traffic. The different applications vary in terms of their needs. Some may be very focused on high-speed local area communication, others need to connect at optimal speed over a wide-area network, and yet others need to find the right ways to provide global services without incurring unreasonable delays. For these reasons it is difficult to specify what "low latency" means in terms of specific delays. Applications and network scenarios differ. Reaching a 50ms latency may be enough for some applications while others may require 50us. Obviously, latency is ultimately Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 limited by physics, location, and topology. Individual link characteristics are important, but system level communication needs both in terms of what is being communicated and between what parties matter more. Note that when we say "low-latency capabilities", there is no intent to imply any specific implementation of those capabilities. In particular, we look at the low-latency requirements from a broader perspective than Quality-of-Service guarantees or separating traffic onto different classes. Indeed, while today's virtualisation and software-driven technologies give us more tools to deal with those kinds of arrangements as well, past experience on deploying Quality- of-Service mechanisms in the Internet should give us a pause [CC2015]. It is not the purpose of this memo to analyse the application requirements for low-latency applications much further; for our purposes it suffices to note that there are applications that are enabled by low-latency capabilities of the underlying network infrastructure. 3. Role of Low-Latency vs. Other Communications There are some limited applications that rely solely on local communication. One example of such an application is vehicles communicating braking status to nearby ones. Also, while many applications run in the global Internet, some are designed for specialised networks that may not have full or even any Internet connectivity, but yet use IP technology. However, many applications will include also wide-area communication. If the factory automation machines are not talking other than with themselves, at least their control systems are doing so in order to ensure parts orders, monitoring and maintenance by equipment manufacturers, and so on. This does not imply that these perhaps critical applications are openly accessible from the Internet, but many of them are likely to communicate outside their immediate surroundings. Many applications also rely on wide-area connectivity for software updates. As a result, this document recommends that when building architectures for low-latency applications it is important to take into account that these applications can also benefit from communications elsewhere. Or at the very least, the existence of a Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 specialised communications link or network should not be immediately taken to mean that no other communications are needed. 4. Selected Improvements to Communications Latency It should be noted that latency is a very broad topic in communications protocol design, almost as broad as "security", or even "correctness". Implementation techniques to satisfy these requirements vary, some applications can be built with sufficient fast local networking capabilities, others may require, for instance, building world-wide, distributed content delivery mechanisms. Modern networking systems offer many tools for building low-latency networks, from highly optimised individual protocol components [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] [RFC7413] [RFC7540] to software controlled, virtualised and tailored network functions [NFV2012] [RFC7665] [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] [OF2008]. Data- and software- driven network management and orchestration tools enable networks to be built to serve particular needs as well as to optimize workload placement in a way low-latency requirements could be met. Obviously, low-latency communications are not merely a matter of protocols and their optimisation. Implementation techniques matter, from the placement of network functions and nodes in the right places, to the quality of individual function implementations. Today's technology allows much freedom on placement of (virtual) functions at chosen locations and many options for all functions ranging from load balancing to storage to packet processing to management tools. Good design can provide significant gains by reducing latency in and between network components, reducing the necessary control traffic and state synchronization, and so on. Across the stack there are also many other protocol tools, as well as tools being in development, e.g., a new transport design [L4S] at the IETF. On the lower layers, improvements in radio communications are being made. For instance, the IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking Task Group [TSN8021] has worked to define precise time synchronization mechanisms for a local area network, and scheduling mechanisms to enable different classes of traffic to use the same network while minimising jitter and latency. At the IETF, the DETNET working group is taking these capabilities and applying them for layer 3 networking [DETNET]. Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 The 3GPP 5G requirements for next-generation access technology are stringent, and are leading to the optimization of the radio interfaces. The requirements specify a one-way latency limit of 0.5ms for ultra-reliable low-latency communications [TS38913]. But again, mere latency numbers mean very little without the context of a system and what an application needs to communicate and with whom. 5. Architectural Considerations Despite a large number of specific developments, it may be interesting to view the developments from a system viewpoint, and to consider the potential future stresses that the strive for low- latency support for applications may bring. 5.1. Background To begin with, it may be useful to observe that the requirements and developments outlined above do not necessarily imply that any specific new technology is needed or that the nature of communications in the Internet would somehow fundamentally change. And certainly not that latency should be the only or primary concern in technology development. With the drive for a new class of applications, there is often an expectation that this means significant changes. However, all changes need to stand on their own, be justifiable and deployable on a global network. For instance, the discussion around the introduction of the newest 4K or 8K high-definition video streaming applications is reminiscent of the discussions about the introduction of VoIP applications in the Internet. At the time, there was some expectation that special arrangements and Quality-of-Service mechanisms might be needed to support this new traffic class. This turned out to be not true, at least not in general networks. Experience tells us, for instance, that deploying Quality-of-Service mechanisms in the Internet is hard, not so much because of the technology itself, but due to lack of forces that would be able to drive the necessary business changes in the ecosystem for the technology to be feasibly deployable [CC2015]. As claffy and Clark note: "Although the Internet has a standards body (the IETF) to resolve technical issues, it lacks any similar forum to discuss business issues such as how to allocate revenues among competing ISPs offering enhanced services. In the U.S., ISPs feared such discussions would risk anti-trust scrutiny. Thus, lacking a way to negotiate the business implications of QoS, it was considered a cost rather than a potential source of revenue. Yet, the Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 relentless growth of a diversity of applications with widely varying performance requirements continued on the public Internet, with ISPs using relatively primitive, and not always completely benign, mechanisms for handling them." These difficulties should not be read as prohibiting all changes. Of course, change can also seem unlikely even in cases where it becomes absolutely necessary or the forces necessary to make a change have actually built up. As a result, statements regarding change in the Internet should be carefully evaluated on their merits from both technical and ecosystem perspective. Secondly, we often consider characteristics from a too narrow viewpoint. In the case of latency, it is easy to focus on a particular protocol or link, whereas from the user perspective latency is a property of the system, not a property of an individual component. For instance, improvements on the performance of one link on a communications path can be insignificant, if the other parts make up a significant fraction of the system-level latency. That may seem obvious, but many applications are highly dependent on communications between a number of different parties which may reside in different places. For instance, a third party may perform authentication for a cloud-based service that also interacts with user's devices and a number of different sensors and actuators. We cannot change the speed of light, and a single exchange with another part of the world may result in a 100ms delay, or about 200 times longer than the expected 5G radio link delay for critical applications. It is clear that designing applications from a system perspective is very important. 5.2. Implications This section discusses a selected set of architectural effects and design choices within applications that desire low latency communications. 5.2.1. Service Distribution As noted above, low-latency applications need to pay particular attention to the placement of services in the global network. Operations that are on the critical path for the low-latency aspects of an application are unlikely to work well if those communications need to traverse half of the Internet. Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 Many widely used services are already distributed and replicated throughout the world, to minimise communications latency. But many other services are not distributed in this manner. For low-latency applications such distribution becomes necessary. Hosting a global service in one location is not feasible due to latency, even when from a scale perspective a single server might otherwise suffice for the service. All major public cloud providers offer CDN services to their customers - AWS's CloudFront, Google's Cloud CDN and Azure's CDN to mention a few. Content-Delivery Networks (CDNs) and similar arrangements are likely to flourish because of this. These arrangements can bring content close to end-users, and have a significant impact on latency. Typical CDN arrangements provide services that are on a global scale nearby, e.g., in the same country or even at the ISP's datacenter. Today's CDNs are of course just one form of distributed service implementation. Previous generations, such as web caching, have existed as well, and it is likely that the current arrangements will evolve in the future. CDN evolution is also naturally affected not only by the need to provide services closer to the user, but also through the fine-grained control and visibility mechanisms that it gives to the content owners. Such factors continue to affect also future evolution, e.g., any information-centric networking solutions that might emerge. 5.2.2. Edge Computing Recent advances in "edge computing" take the more traditional type service like CDN as well as a new class of services that require "local compute" capabilities placement even further by providing services near the users. This would enable more extreme uses cases where latency from, say, ISP datacenter to the users is considered too high. An important consideration is what is considered an edge, however. From Internet perspective edge usually refers to the IP point of presence or the first IP hop. But given the centralised nature of many access networks, some of the discussions around the use of edge computing also involve components at the edge that are much closer to user than the first IP hop. Special arrangements are needed to enable direct IP connectivity from the user equipment to these components. 5.2.3. Routing and tunnels How the communications are routed also matters. For instance, architectures based on tunneling to a central point may incur extra delay. One way to address this pressure is to use SDN- and virtualisation-based networks that can be provisioned in the desired Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 manner, so that, for instance, instances of tunnel servers can be placed in the topologically optimal place for a particular application. 5.2.4. Alternative Paths and Control Tension Recent developments in multipath transport protocols [RFC6824] also provide application- and service-level control of some of the networking behaviour. Similar choices among alternative paths also exist in simpler techniques, ranging from server selection algorithms to IPv6 "Happy Eyeballs" algorithms [RFC6555]. In all of these cases an application makes some observations of the environment and decides to use an alternative path or target that is perceived to be best suited for the application's needs. In all of these multipath and alternative selection techniques there is tension between application control (often by content providers) and network control (often by network operators). One special case where that tension has appeared in the past is whether there should be ways to provide information from applications to networks on how packets should be treated. This was extensively discussed during the discussion stemming from implications of increased use of encryption in the Internet, and how that affects operators [I-D.nrooney-marnew-report]. Another case where there is tension is between mechanisms designed for a single link or network vs. end-to-end mechanisms. Many of the stated requirements for low-latency applications are explicitly about end-to-end characteristics and capabilities. Yet, the two mechanisms are very different, and most of the deployment difficulties reported in [CC2015] relate to end-to-end mechanisms. Note that some of the multipath techniques can be used either by endpoints or by the network. Proxy-based Multipath TCP is one example of this [I-D.boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode]. 5.2.5. Quality-of-Service Existing approaches have not necessarily proven to be technical deficient in any way, but it seems that it is reasonable to draw some conclusions about the lack of feasibility for deploying mechanisms that require a high degree of coordination among multiple parties. Without significant changes in the marketplace or other conditions, these types of solutions do not seem likely to get traction. The other observation that may be worth noting is that many networks have focused on providing highly tuned services for a relatively Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 small fractions of traffic. While this may be justifiable from the perspective of special applications needing that support, this does not seem to produce a good bang-for-the-buck ratio. There's relatively small amount of work on mechanisms that would help a large fraction of applications. For instance, in many access networks the over-the-top content is by far the biggest source of traffic. Solutions that are business-wise deployable for such traffic would seem preferrable. 5.2.6. Cross-Layer Optimisations In the search for even faster connection setup times one obvious technique is cross-layer optimisation. We have seen some of this in the IETF in the rethinking of the layers for transport, transport layer security, and application framework protocols. By taking into account the protocol layer interactions or even bundling the protocol design together, it is relatively easy to optimise the connection setup time, as evidenced by recent efforts to look for "0-RTT" designs in various protocols. But while cross-layer optimisation can bring benefits, it also has downsides. In particular, it connects different parts of the stack in additional ways. This can lead to difficulties in further evolution of the technology, if done wrong. In the case of the IETF transport protocol evolution, significant improvements were made to ensure better evolvability of the protocols than what we've experienced with TCP, starting from an ability to implement the new protocols in applications rather than in the kernel. While the connection setup is an obvious example, cross-layer optimisations are not limited to them. Interfaces between application, transport, networking, and link layers can provide information and set parameters that improve latency. For instance, setting DSCP values or requesting a specialised L2 service for a particular application. Cross-Layer optimisations between lower layers will be discussed in the upcoming versions of the draft. The effects of badly designed cross-layer optimisation are a particular form of Internet ossification. The general networking trend, however, is for greater flexibility and programmability. Arguably, the ease at which networks can evolve is probably even more important than their specific characteristics. These comments about cross-layer optimisation should not be interpreted to mean that protocol design should not take into account how other layers behave. The IETF has a long tradition of discussing Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 link layer design implications for Internet communications (see, e.g., the results of the PILC working group [RFC3819]. 5.3. Recommendations for Further Work Low-latency applications continue to be a hot topic in networking. The following topics in particular deserve further work from an architectural point of view: o Application architectures for globally connected but low-latency services. o What are the issues with inter-domain Quality-of-Service mechanisms? Are there approaches that would offer progress on this field? Work on Quality-of-Service mechanisms that are deployable for common cases, and without excessive need for technical and non-technical coordination across the ecosystem. o Network architectures that employ tunneling, and mitigations against the delay impacts of tunnels (such as tunnel server placement or "local breakout" techniques). Low latency often implies high reliability, special care is to be taken of network convergence, and other, relevant characteristics of the underlying infrastructure. o The emergence of cross-layer optimisations and how that affects the Internet architecture and its future evolution. o Inter-organisatorial matters, e.g., to what extent different standards organisations need to talk about low latency effects and ongoing work, to promote system-level understanding? Overall, this memo stresses the importance of the system-level understanding of Internet applications and their latency issues. Efforts to address specific sub-issues are unlikely to be fruitful without a holistic plan. In the authors' opinion, the most extreme use cases (e.g., 1ms or smaller latencies) are not worth building general-purpose networks for. But having the necessary tools so that networks can be flexible for the more general cases is very useful, as there are many applications that can benefit from the added flexibility. The key tools for this include ability to manage network function placement and topology. Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 6. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Brian Trammell, Mirja Kuehlewind, Linda Dunbar, Goran Rune, Ari Keranen, James Kempf, Stephen Farrell, Mohamed Boucadair, Kumar Balachandran, Jani-Pekka Kainulainen, Goran AP Eriksson, and many others for interesting discussions in this problem space. The author would also like to acknowledge the important contribution that [I-D.dunbar-e2e-latency-arch-view-and-gaps] made in this topic. 7. Informative References [CC2015] claffy, kc. and D. Clark, "Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History", September 2015 (https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2015/ adding_enhanced_services_internet/ adding_enhanced_services_internet.pdf). [DETNET] "Deterministic Networking (DETNET) Working Group", March 2016 (https://tools.ietf.org/wg/detnet/charters). [ER2015] Yilmaz, O., "5G Radio Access for Ultra-Reliable and Low- Latency Communications", Ericsson Research Blog, May 2015 (https://www.ericsson.com/research-blog/5g/5g-radio- access-for-ultra-reliable-and-low-latency- communications/). [HU2015] "5G Vision: 100 Billion connections, 1 ms Latency, and 10 Gbps Throughput", Huawei 2015 (http://www.huawei.com/minisite/5g/en/defining-5g.html). [I-D.boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode] Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Bonaventure, O., Behaghel, D., stefano.secci@lip6.fr, s., Henderickx, W., Skog, R., Vinapamula, S., Seo, S., Cloetens, W., Meyer, U., Contreras, L., and B. Peirens, "Extensions for Network- Assisted MPTCP Deployment Models", draft-boucadair-mptcp- plain-mode-10 (work in progress), March 2017. [I-D.dunbar-e2e-latency-arch-view-and-gaps] Dunbar, L., "Architectural View of E2E Latency and Gaps", draft-dunbar-e2e-latency-arch-view-and-gaps-01 (work in progress), March 2017. Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-07 (work in progress), October 2017. [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] Quinn, P., Elzur, U., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-27 (work in progress), October 2017. [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-21 (work in progress), July 2017. [I-D.nrooney-marnew-report] Rooney, N., "IAB Workshop on Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World (MaRNEW) Report", draft-nrooney-marnew- report-03 (work in progress), June 2017. [IMT2020] "Framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2020 and beyond", ITU Recommendation M.2083-0, September 2015 (http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-M.2083-0-201509-I/en). [L4S] "Low Latency Low Loss Scalable throughput (L4S) Birds-of- Feather Session", July 2016 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/l4s/charter/). [NFV2012] "Network Functions Virtualisation - Introductory White Paper", ETSI, http://portal.etsi.org/NFV/NFV_White_Paper.pdf, October 2012. [NGMN2015] "5G White Paper", NGMN Alliance, February 2015 (https://www.ngmn.org/fileadmin/ngmn/content/downloads/ Technical/2015/NGMN_5G_White_Paper_V1_0.pdf). [NO2015] Doppler, K., "5G the next major wireless standard", DREAMS Seminar, January 2015 (https://chess.eecs.berkeley.edu/pubs/1084/ doppler-DREAMS_5G_jan15.pdf). Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 [OF2008] McKeown, N., Anderson, T., Balakrishnan, H., Parulkar, G., Peterson, L., Rexford, J., Shenker, S., and J. Turner, "OpenFlow: Enabling Innovation in Campus Networks", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp. 69-74 2008. [QU2016] "Leading the world to 5G", Qualcomm, February 2016 (https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/ qualcomm-5g-vision-presentation.pdf). [RFC3819] Karn, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D., Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L. Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89, RFC 3819, DOI 10.17487/RFC3819, July 2004, . [RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April 2012, . [RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013, . [RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R. Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC 7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC7323, September 2014, . [RFC7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014, . [RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, . [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015, . Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Low Latency October 2017 [TS38913] "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on Scenarios and Requirements for Next Generation Access Technologies; (Release 14)", 3GPP Technical Report TR 38.913 V14.2.0, March 2017 (https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=2996). [TSN8021] "Time-Sensitive Networking Task Group", IEEE (http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/tsn.html). Authors' Addresses Jari Arkko Ericsson Kauniainen 02700 Finland Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net Jeff Tantsura Futurewei, Future Networks Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Arkko & Tantsura Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 15]