



Internet Engineering Task Force                              M. Blanchet
Internet-Draft                                                  Viagenie
Intended status: Informational                                W. M. Eddy
Expires: 2 September 2026                           Aalyria Technologies
                                                            1 March 2026


                      QUIC Profile for Deep Space
                   draft-many-tiptop-quic-profile-02

Abstract

   Deep space communications involve long delays (e.g., Earth to Mars is
   4-20 minutes) and intermittent communications, because of orbital
   dynamics.  In this context, typical QUIC stacks default transport
   parameters for terrestrial Internet are not suitable for deep space.
   This document defines a QUIC profile for deep space.  It provides
   guidance on how to estimate and set transport parameters, advice to
   space mission operators and application developers on how to
   configure QUIC for the deep space use case and guidance to QUIC stack
   developers to properly expose the required transport parameters in
   their API.

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 2 September 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.



Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Example Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  RTT Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Bandwidth-Delay Product(BDP) Calculation  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Transport Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Initial RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Idle Timeout  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Window Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Flow Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Max Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Path MTU discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Acknowledgement Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Packet Size and Sending Pace  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. New connection IDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. Moon Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   13. Intermittence Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   14. Application Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   17. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     17.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     17.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   Deep space communications involve long delays, such as Earth to Mars
   is 4-20 minutes, and intermittent communications, because of orbital
   dynamics, such as when an orbiter is passing over a rover every 6
   hours for a duration of 15 minutes.

   Typical QUIC stacks default transport parameters for terrestrial
   Internet assume low latency such as 100-200 ms, and relative
   continuous connectivity.  Therefore, parameters such as initial_rtt,
   maximum_idle_timeout have defaults typically not suitable for deep
   space.



Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   Space missions are scheduled in advance and parameters such as the
   maximum round-trip time or bandwidth are known and determined in
   advance.  Given relative low bandwidth in space and the intermittent
   communications, bandwidth usage is very precious and therefore any
   unneeded communication should be minimized as much as possible.
   Further discussion on use cases and requirements for deep space IP is
   discussed in [I-D.ietf-tiptop-usecase].

   As described in [I-D.many-tiptop-ip-architecture], packets will be
   stored at either layer 2 or layer 3 by orbiters during the periods
   where connectivity to the next hop is not possible.

1.1.  Example Scenario

   To better illustrate the implication on various transport parameters,
   an example scenario is provided in this section.

   A rover on the Mars surface is connected to a Mars surface IP network
   which receives intermittent connectivity from a few orbiters with an
   average of 6 hours per orbit.  Some of those orbiters have circular
   orbits, other elleptical.  The latter means that the overpass are not
   at a fixed frequency.  The orbiters are connected to Earth ground
   station while they are in line of sight with Earth.  Earth and Mars
   have variable distance from 4 to 20 minutes light seconds.  That one
   way delay however change "slowly" as the planets are orbiting around
   the Sun.

1.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  RTT Calculation

   A QUIC stack estimates the round-trip time(RTT) between the two peers
   over the period of the connection.  This is used for example to
   initiate the retransmission of packets when the acknowledgement of
   those packets is not received within the expected RTT.  Using the
   example in Section 1.1, it is necessary to prime the QUIC stack with
   the right initial values, to avoid, for example, to retransmit
   packets after 100 ms while the expected RTT is 2 hours.







Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   A space application designer should calculate the maximum RTT for its
   mission.  Using the example in Section 1.1, the maximum RTT due to
   the maximum two-way delay is 45 minutes and the one due to the
   overpass frequency is 6 hours, therefore the maximum RTT is 6 hours
   45 minutes.

   A space application designer should calculate the minimum RTT for its
   mission.  Using the example in Section 1.1, the minimum RTT due to
   the minimum two-way delay is 8 minutes and the one due to the
   overpass frequency is 0 assuming direct line of sight for the whole
   path, therefore the minimum RTT is 8 minutes.

3.  Bandwidth-Delay Product(BDP) Calculation

   A QUIC stack like any transport stack manages the pacing of sending
   packets from the source to avoid overloading the network, creating
   congestion and to avoid overloading the other peer.

   A space application designer should calculate the bandwidth-delay
   product(BDP) of the whole path for its mission.  The minimum BDP
   should be calculated with the minimum RTT and the minimum bandwidth
   used during those times.  The maximum BDP should be calculated with
   the maximum RTT and the maximum bandwidth.

4.  Transport Parameters

   This section discusses how to configure some QUIC transport
   parameters.  The parameter names are from the IANA
   registry[iana_quic_transport].

4.1.  Initial RTT

   To prime the QUIC stack with the expected RTT of the mission, an
   application should set the Initial RTT on connection establishment to
   the maximum RTT as calculated in Section 2.

   If the set RTT is too low, then retransmission will be sent before
   the actual acknowledgement was received.  In this case, the QUIC
   stack will still converge and deliver reliable data, but at the
   expense of extra bandwidth used.  If the set RTT is too high, then
   when a packet is lost, the retransmission will be started later than
   the optimal time, therefore the total time to transmit all the data,
   including the losses recovered, will be longer than if it was set
   properly, but the QUIC stack will still converge and deliver reliable
   data.

   The initial_rtt transport parameter is specified in [RFC9002].




Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   An application may use the resume mechanism as described in
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-careful-resume] to update the RTT during the
   connection lifetime.

4.2.  Idle Timeout

   To avoid the QUIC stack to terminate a connection due to no activity
   from the other peer, an application should set the Idle Timeout on
   connection establishment to the maximum RTT as calculated in
   Section 2.

   If the set RTT is too low, then the other peer may terminate the
   connection before all the data is received.  In this case, the QUIC
   stack on the sender side will need to reestablish the connection,
   possibly using the 0RTT mechanism, and resend the data that was not
   acknowledged previously.  In this case, the application shall still
   recover and provide full data reliability but at the expense of more
   total time and extra bandwidth used.  If the set RTT is too high,
   then the other peer will close its side of the connection later than
   needed in the event of a lost connection.  In this case, the
   resources used by keeping the connection, such as memory, will not be
   released as fast as it could be if the RTT was properly set.

   The max_idle_timeout transport parameter is specified in section 8.2
   of [RFC9000].

5.  Congestion Control

   In the Internet stack, congestion control (CC) in transport protocols
   is crucial to sharing network resources among concurrent traffic
   flows.  Minimizing congestion is necessary in order to prevent
   unnecessary queueing latency and packet drops.  Problems with typical
   Internet congestion control algorithms in deep space settings can
   include: (1) assumptions of timely in-band feedback/information, (2)
   interpretation of large delays as congestion/loss, and (3) lack of
   knowledge about overall network state and management decisions.















Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   Internet transport protocols use estimates of loss events, round-trip
   latency, and Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
   [RFC3168][RFC8087][RFC8311] to sense connection.  All of these
   methods operate in a "closed loop" fashion on the scale of RTTs, in
   order to react responsively in normal Internet conditions.  When the
   RTTs are many minutes or more in some deep space scenarios, this is
   not effective in quickly detecting and reacting to congestion.
   Instead of relying on in-band closed loop detection and response to
   congestion, deep space congestion control could be assisted by
   management/control plane information, as deep space access,
   networking, and mission operations are substantially coordinated, in
   contrast to normal Internet access.

   [I-D.many-tiptop-ip-architecture] discusses that given intermittent
   connectivity in deep space, nodes may need to temporarily store
   either L2 frames or L3 packets when links are down until the link is
   up again.  This behavior will be interpreted by various CC algorithms
   as congestion.  However, this is not necessarily the right behavior,
   since the delays generated are due to waiting for a lower-layer
   transmisison opportunity, but not necessarily lack of capacity when
   it becomes available to transmit.

   Deep space networking differs from traditional Internet use, because
   it is highly coordinated.  Antennas must be pointed and track
   physically, and operations centers must work together between
   agencies/companies/etc in order to manage resources (including
   spectrum usage, physical systems, compute and storage, etc.) and
   orchestrate configurations and activities over time.  Planning and
   scheduling is a significant activity, and results in the abilitly to
   understand traffic flow needs and allocate capacity for application
   flows, unlike in the traditional Internet.

   Other space-oriented transport protocols, such as SCPS-TP, have
   included rate-based open loop congestion control algorithms.  These
   algorithms send at pre-determined rates, without necessarily
   requiring in-band feedback, with the rate information over time
   provided by variables managed through an external scheduling system
   or other means.

   Therefore, QUIC stacks for deep space should be configurable to use
   rate-based open-loop congestion control, that allows relevant
   configuration variables such as window, pacing rate, expected RTT,
   and others to be governed by schedule-driven management/control plane
   cues, rather than closed loop in-band probing/estimation.







Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


5.1.  Window Size

   A QUIC stack manages the pacing of the source by the window size.  A
   typical value used for Internet is 2 times the BDP.  In space,
   careful considerations must be taken.  A too low BDP means that the
   source node may not be sending enough packets to completly use the
   network and the available bandwidth of the links, which is less
   optimal given the scarcity of communications in space.  Therefore, an
   application should not use a BDP lower than the minimum BDP as
   calculated in Section 3.  A too large BDP may use too much of the
   bandwidth of the links.

   Since packets may be stored at either layer 2 or layer 3 by
   intermediate nodes, the maximum storage of in-flight packets in these
   intermediary nodes is to be considered.  Therefore, space operations
   should properly identify the best window size based on the minimum
   and maximum BDP and storage size of the intermediary nodes for the
   mission/application.  As those parameters are known in advance for a
   mission, these can be set appropriately on connection establishment
   by the application.

6.  Flow Control


6.1.  Max Data

   initial_max_data is the maximum number of bytes that can be sent on a
   connection [RFC9000]. initial_max_stream_data is similar but per
   stream.  Given the BDP of a typical deep space connection,
   applications should set these parameters to enough large values so
   that the source is capable of sending data while the bandwidth is
   available.

   The various initial_max_data transport parameters are specified in
   section 8.2 of [RFC9000].

7.  Path MTU discovery

   To find the optimum MTU, some QUIC stacks implement Path MTU
   discovery[RFC8899], which sends bigger packets every time until it
   discovers the maximum MTU, which may involve packet loss.  Given that
   in deep space, MTUs for all links on the paths may be known in
   advance and that probing is inefficient and not timely, the
   application developer may elect to disable the path MTU discovery
   mechanism and set the real path MTU on connection establishment of
   the application.





Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   For instance, a 1280 byte path MTU might be assumed, based on
   knowledge of the network design and assurance from network providers
   that this would be supported without fragmentation, after accounting
   for any encapsulation present on the scheduled paths.

   Given coordination between the small number of network operators
   involved in an end-to-end path, support for large MTUs might be
   coordinated and known in advance.  This could be desirable for
   efficiency, but is out of scope of this document.

   Since scheduled paths may change over time, to enable use a known
   optimal value at any time, the path MTU can also be exposed by an
   implementation as a dynamically managed parameter, set according to a
   schedule.

8.  Acknowledgement Frequency

   QUIC stacks have various mechanisms to trigger acknowledgements
   (ACKs), as described in [RFC9000], [I-D.ietf-quic-ack-frequency].
   There are advantages of sending "frequent" acknowledgements, such as
   the source can free out memory of received frames earlier.  However,
   this uses more capacity for sending ACKs, and could be problematic in
   cases of very high link bandwidth or network path capacity asymmetry.

   Adjusted ACK frequency information is provided to a QUIC peer through
   an in-band signal in a QUIC ACK_FREQUENCY frame extension to the QUIC
   base specification.  Usage needs to be negotiated via transport
   parameters on connection establishment, and desired values need to be
   provided (e.g. directly by an application or supplied to the stack
   via a management system).  The max_ack_delay and ack_delay_exponent
   transport parameters are specified in section 8.2 of [RFC9000], and
   requested max_ack_delay changes are provided in ACK_FREQUENCY frames.

   The optimal ACK frequency is related to the bandwidth asymmetry
   between the directions of data and acknowledgement flow.  This may
   vary over time, but also can be known in advance by a route
   orchestrator or other management system.  In order to optimize
   performance, ACK frequency may be exposed as a dynamically controlled
   or time-varying parameter.

9.  Packet Size and Sending Pace

   There are pros and cons of sending large packets.  Sending smaller
   packets means using more bandwidth because of multiple headers,
   unless header compression is used, but decreases the probability of
   packet loss which in space should be minimized.  Sending larger
   packets means more efficient use of bandwidth, but in front of
   significant packet loss, may in fact result in using more bandwidth



Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   than smaller packets, since they will have to be re-transmitted.

   In the context of Internet, QUIC stacks may elect to not wait much
   time in order to add more frames in a single packets to deliver
   faster to the receiving end point.

   For deep space applications, where time for transmission is many
   orders of magnitude longer than on Internet, a QUIC stack may be
   configured to wait "a bit more" to add more frames to a single
   packet.  For example, before sending a packet, a QUIC stack may wait
   to process all incoming packets in case the latter may elect to add
   frames on the response packet.

10.  New connection IDs

   QUIC stacks typically preemptively send new connection IDs to the
   other peer, for future needs such as future connection migration.
   However, those use cases may not be happening often in deep space.
   That optional optimization of sending new connection IDs may not be
   needed for deep space use case, while the actual cost of these
   additional bytes is pretty low.

11.  FEC

   CCSDS deep space links uses FEC at layer 2 (TODO: add ref to CCSDS
   book), using a pipeline of codecs, enabling low frame error rate in
   the presence of a higher signal bit error rate.  While FEC for QUIC
   has been defined [I-D.michel-quic-fec], it remains to be seen if it
   is really needed for deep space.

12.  Moon Deployment Considerations

   Earth to Moon is just a few light seconds away.  When the whole path
   is all line of sight, it is possible to use QUIC stacks as configured
   today, but it will take more time to converge, therefore less
   optimal.  The BBR algorithm will be a better choice as it is based on
   delay to measure congestion.

   However, if one wants to consider orbiters that will have
   intermittent communications, then the scenario discussed in
   Section 1.1 also applies and calculating RTT and BDP as discussed
   previously apply.









Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


13.  Intermittence Awareness

   Another way to solve the generic problem is to make transport aware
   of the intermittence periods, so that when there is a direct path
   end-to-end without any intermittence, the normal QUIC behavior such
   as congestion control may be used with proper RTT configuration, and
   then a different behavior in the context of intermittence.  However,
   the actual scheduling of communication windows is pretty complicated
   and have a lot of variations that an intermittence-aware transport
   will be very fragile.

14.  Application Considerations

   On terrestrial Internet, the cost, by time or bandwidth, to re-
   establish a connection to the same peer is very low, since it is re-
   established very fast and without too much use of bandwidth.
   Therefore, often, applications are designed in a pattern of
   establishing a connection, sending a query, getting the response,
   closing the connection and redoing the whole process for the next
   query.  In deep space, the cost, specially the delay, of re-
   establishing a connection is very high.  Therefore, applications
   should be carefully designed to not close connections after a query-
   response, if there is a possible new queries in the future.

15.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

16.  Security Considerations

   The use of 0-RTT is subject to replay attacks[RFC9001] and therefore
   should be considered to be disabled depending on the security policy
   of the mission.

   Certificates and keys need to be renewed before their expiration,
   taking into account the delay to send, receive and confirm.
   Protocols such as OCSP[RFC6960] providing on-line real-time
   validation and revocation check will likely not work given the too
   long delays, therefore certificates need to be validated using local
   trust anchors.

   The use of long term keys, such as ones set prior to launch, may
   create exposure, therefore keys should be renewed at appropriate
   frequency.

17.  References

17.1.  Normative References



Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

17.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC6960]  Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A.,
              Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key
              Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP",
              RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960>.

   [RFC8087]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8087, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087>.

   [RFC8311]  Black, D., "Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion
              Notification (ECN) Experimentation", RFC 8311,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8311, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8311>.

   [RFC8899]  Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
              Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
              Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
              September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8899>.

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.

   [RFC9001]  Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
              QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.






Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


   [RFC9002]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
              and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
              May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9002>.

   [I-D.michel-quic-fec]
              Michel, F. and O. Bonaventure, "Forward Erasure Correction
              for QUIC loss recovery", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-michel-quic-fec-01, 23 October 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-michel-quic-
              fec-01>.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-careful-resume]
              Kuhn, N., Stephan, E., Fairhurst, G., Secchi, R., and C.
              Huitema, "Convergence of Congestion Control from Retained
              State", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              tsvwg-careful-resume-24, 1 October 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
              careful-resume-24>.

   [I-D.ietf-quic-ack-frequency]
              Iyengar, J., Swett, I., and M. Kühlewind, "QUIC
              Acknowledgment Frequency", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency-14, 5 February 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
              ack-frequency-14>.

   [I-D.ietf-tiptop-usecase]
              Blanchet, M., Eddy, W., and M. Eubanks, "IP in Deep Space:
              Key Characteristics, Use Cases and Requirements", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tiptop-usecase-01, 21
              January 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-tiptop-usecase-01>.

   [I-D.many-tiptop-ip-architecture]
              Blanchet, M., Eddy, W., and T. Li, "An Architecture for IP
              in Deep Space", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              many-tiptop-ip-architecture-02, 29 September 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-many-tiptop-
              ip-architecture-02>.

   [iana_quic_transport]
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), "QUIC Transport
              Parameters", September 2025,
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/quic.xhtml#quic-
              transport>.






Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         QUIC Profile for Deep Space            March 2026


Acknowledgements

   This document and its underlying work has been reviewed and discussed
   by many, who have provided valuable feedback and comments, including
   disagreements, and made an overall more solid document.  These people
   are, in no specific order: Lars Eggert, Christian Huitema, Adolfo
   Ochagavia, Mirja Kuehlewind, Michael Richardson.

   The Quinn QUIC stack was used for testing.  We would like to
   acknowledge the help of Benjamin Saunders and Adolfo Ochagavia in
   using Quinn.

Authors' Addresses

   Marc Blanchet
   Viagenie
   Canada
   Email: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca


   Wesley M. Eddy
   Aalyria Technologies
   United States of America
   Email: wes@aalyria.com



























Blanchet & Eddy         Expires 2 September 2026               [Page 13]
