Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 00:29 UTC
Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 9767812940C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 YhX8Wpc82agI for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o1.sgmail.github.com (o1.sgmail.github.com [192.254.114.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB4DE129401 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=LvaTrHMWV+diFJlm2UIIuSVXZp8=; b=auzjaXI6xSc6ZkbD nB4sjPvFIY6jjjb1ox65IurSlNoHQvqXx+9SQruNPi+ftUAiPvpY5tbSl/vfxDIQ ZdNMBHRYLmtdm0/X7mXSCrnXQqQs1nA/Rsg9RJrw2mYbhitMcRs6XKkI7PJrlhmi r3QrM9dO9kyKZvNdgdPKZty3d38=
Received: by filter0514p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0514p1mdw1-21031-58C5E804-43 2017-03-13 00:29:56.729363581 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0005p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id ByNRVrGyRoOINhJ8_egmrQ for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:29:56.718 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:29:56 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383/285990851@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58c5e8049b40f_4ae23fc00ac7dc38104592"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3MTkRDcQ8rMLV6h2p6UAP43UcBBNvqAG1qEx u4oekgp3W0Dfxzzqc6G8MycHQBa5ZIoT+6K+MLjpq7r6vyDENK0v2NlYZaE4v81us0ik02VjrJ0ARF OutJX+vaowfJRvAZgqkPqJA9gWGgS/hgdJMoEmWnnlP9XtUDVPQWzNYEdabkTNFQ0A9DhZ7WYCeVlw 4=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/1lTZefHg1ii5iebQmC7TU7F-tMU>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:29:58 -0000
I agree with the view that this looks a lot like PMTUD, providing that the endpoint is consistent in how it drops larger packets. Is there any value in signaling a maximum if you are operating a constrained implementation? -- 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/383#issuecomment-285990851
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maxim… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson