An Experimental Investigation of Tuning QUIC-Based Publish–Subscribe Architectures in IoT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been growing interest in using the QUIC transport protocol for the Internet of Things (IoT). In lossy and high-latency networks, QUIC outperforms TCP and TLS. Since IoT greatly differs from traditional networks in terms of architecture and resources, IoT specific parameter tuning has proven to be of significance. While RFC 9006 offers a guideline for tuning TCP within IoT, we have not found an equivalent for QUIC. This article is the first of our knowledge to contribute empirically based insights toward tuning QUIC for IoT. We improved our pure HTTP/3 publish–subscribe architecture and rigorously benchmarked it against an alternative: MQTT-over-QUIC. To investigate the impact of transport-layer parameters, we ran both applications on Raspberry Pi Zero hardware. Eight metrics were collected while emulating different network conditions and message payloads. We enumerate the points we experimentally identified (notably, relating to authentication, MAX_STREAM messages, and timers) and elaborate on how they can be tuned to improve resource consumption and performance. Our application offered lower latency than MQTT-over-QUIC with slightly higher resource consumption, making it preferable for reliable time-sensitive dissemination of information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".