Re: snarls in real life

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 4/21/21 10:08 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On 4/21/2021 9:31 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>> Chrome already did the DANE work once upon a time so DNSSec is the 
>> only missing piece. But the very thought that the number of packets 
>> exchanged in a transport protocol's setup is *off topic* within 24 
>> hours and a few messages back and forth speaks miles about how broken 
>> many working groups are and why nobody wants to participate.
>
>
> My takeaway from these exchanges is a bit different. You are 
> advocating for using Dane instead of PKI during the authentication 
> exchange, because this leads to fewer packets. People provided three 
> different counter arguments. The first argument was that in first 
> order, performance is measured by the number of round-trips, not the 
> number of packets, and that using Dane instead of PKI would not result 
> in big performance gains in practice. The second argument was that the 
> full authentication exchange is only used in a small fraction of 
> connections. The other exchanges use session resumption, and in that 
> case there is no difference between Dane and PKI. The third argument 
> was that there is no specific work to do in the QUIC working group on 
> this topic, since QUIC relies on TLS 1.3 for authentication and TLS 
> 1.3 already supports Dane. Using Dane instead of PKI is a deployment 
> issue, not a protocol development issue, and there is no concrete work 
> for the QUIC WG.
>
The meta question is whether that is so off topic that it needs to be 
officially shut down with the working group chairs. The technical merits 
are what they are. What I was told in no uncertain terms is that I am 
not allowed to even ask the question. Is that appropriate?

Mike