Return-Path: 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 6CD9A130E1E for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:55:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 7edPmw3JuhP9 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:55:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8F0127333 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:55:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:55:49 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1543290949; bh=aEg1ZwOnHydZx/KSFlnjV4A+73x365+sCIMSGT45qjo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vkUrrhjLzOUBihK4ldgV8Mhn0jdmZ1NFWcnp5phTojJyTrfhRO6REu/V/dpjaraVE 2CJmUWXMme4aOBL2PoCYntidlKe41nSxnVEZxiu03uVz7khK3t0R4lId61IB0OoUAe uN9FqgFIEGSJ43TZ0qW/MKphiVB4+QfhCTGXyPuM= From: martinduke Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rewrite Packet Size section (#2036) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bfcc0459473b_6c7b3fd0d24d45bc130148b"; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 03:55:52 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5bfcc0459473b_6c7b3fd0d24d45bc130148b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit martinduke commented on this pull request. Thank you for updating the reference to PLPMTUD. > +The IPv4 Router requirements {{!RFC1812} state that the quoted packet should RFC 792 requires only 8 bytes of Transport header. While this quite old, it hasn't been formally obsoleted. I've always assumed endpoints needed to handle this case, although I don't have any data as to whether this still really happens in the internet. Hence the original text, which you've removed. As a related data point, only about 4 years ago we saw ICMP messages where the MTU field was set to zero, which has been outdated for 25+ years. It's a wild world out there. > -The PADDING frame provides a useful option for PMTU probe packets. PADDING -frames generate acknowledgements, but they need not be delivered reliably. As a -result, the loss of PADDING frames in probe packets does not require -delay-inducing retransmission. However, PADDING frames do consume congestion -window, which may delay the transmission of subsequent application data. +When implementing the algorithm in Section 5.3 of +{{!DPLPMTUD}}, the initial value of BASE_PMTU SHOULD be consistent with the +minimum QUIC packet size (1232 bytes for IPv6 and 1252 bytes for IPv4). Isn't the BASE_PMTU simply 1280? Is that easier and clearer? > -Section 7.3 of {{!PLPMTUD}} discusses trade-offs between small and large This text was meant to indicate a point in Section 7.3 that does not apply to QUIC. -- 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/pull/2036#pullrequestreview-178599853 ----==_mimepart_5bfcc0459473b_6c7b3fd0d24d45bc130148b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

@martinduke commented on this pull request.

Thank you for updating the reference to PLPMTUD.

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

>  
+The IPv4 Router requirements {{!RFC1812} state that the quoted packet should

RFC 792 requires only 8 bytes of Transport header. While this quite old, it hasn't been formally obsoleted. I've always assumed endpoints needed to handle this case, although I don't have any data as to whether this still really happens in the internet. Hence the original text, which you've removed.

As a related data point, only about 4 years ago we saw ICMP messages where the MTU field was set to zero, which has been outdated for 25+ years. It's a wild world out there.

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

>  
-The PADDING frame provides a useful option for PMTU probe packets. PADDING
-frames generate acknowledgements, but they need not be delivered reliably. As a
-result, the loss of PADDING frames in probe packets does not require
-delay-inducing retransmission. However, PADDING frames do consume congestion
-window, which may delay the transmission of subsequent application data.
+When implementing the algorithm in Section 5.3 of
+{{!DPLPMTUD}}, the initial value of BASE_PMTU SHOULD be consistent with the
+minimum QUIC packet size (1232 bytes for IPv6 and 1252 bytes for IPv4).

Isn't the BASE_PMTU simply 1280? Is that easier and clearer?

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

>  
-Section 7.3 of {{!PLPMTUD}} discusses trade-offs between small and large

This text was meant to indicate a point in Section 7.3 that does not apply to QUIC.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

----==_mimepart_5bfcc0459473b_6c7b3fd0d24d45bc130148b--