Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_packet_size in 0-RTT (#3447)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786F23A145D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SgebmoLkfNYZ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEE5F3A1452 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:35:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1583912155; bh=Jk3aNi5FBFIiKxcFpwv7Zd1IwD7rPytYaH+8LMx5fkk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EiW4M0sqdSGp5N+wcEi1MkD8dsnPFc/++Swlc1G12oYTGJroaCgXyAlIvZcJkeu2p GrVaEvaTJJzy55FA2rKoty27U36g+jJ/mOxfv40KjMEdKhb2sCxqKcz0g40USt5k9q //2VQaJ1/QvNExjQkehA5YyCRT9ml+yb/74Yk638=
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2LS7JFMACAAZYXGAF4OR25XEVBNHHCDDCFOU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447/597485779@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_packet_size in 0-RTT (#3447)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e6894db57603_419c3fb58f8cd960100358"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/1V_dvHl9hh27dcyQolXIEgS1jIE>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:36:01 -0000

After chatting with @martinthomson and kazuho, I recommend that we _not_ make this change.

With the current spec, where a server is not required to reject 0RTT, it means that the server might reduce this value and a client might have to cope with the network (or server) dropping larger 0RTT packets, which it would misconstrue as congestion. OTOH, if the server receives these larger packets despite it having reduced its max_udp_payload_size, it seems a waste to drop packets that have reached and can be processed by the server. Subsequent client connections should use the revised value anyway since the server will communicate a new value in the ServerHello.

(FWIW, a client _could_ use a new reduced transport parameter from the server as an indication that any 0RTT losses were probably not due to congestion. Granted this is a bit of gymnastics, but if a client were to care about the performance of this rare case, it is possible for it to reasonably revert any congestion control action.)

My opinion isn't super strong, but this issue is minor enough. Let's move along to more important things.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447#issuecomment-597485779