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

Kazuho Oku <> Thu, 20 February 2020 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2161D1200A4 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8N8myTP8Cdxy for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9979D12009C for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD31FA1DD9 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1582210718; bh=takbESPjjU9GZYez0Lxu30kzD8A+i/eqv9B8bZlmq/g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=kUOUuFZMwtTEmxSOGHKEdjHGUXr/b83oaiSeLaBsNaiBlHqwJBtbSZ+OQXClSN+FF BkuccPcOWpfoT3Djxp+UXTtADEW0cxr3H+5QXng5AFUpyY0hAaI0OXAAj6vtc6zH2A ADJCqeeQ6uogG7T8Bu5gA+mJ+eNBejWW1pQuw+yY=
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:38 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_packet_size in 0-RTT (#3447)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4e9e9eaddea_56c73f962a4cd95c1392e1"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:58:41 -0000

Regarding the original issue, I think I prefer something different than the two options being suggested.

3. Do not require any behavior on the client-side. Allow servers process packets (or datagrams) larger than the advertised limit.

As stated in my previous comment, there is a risk of seeing inferior performance when the client uses a large packet size that was advertised by the previous connection which is greater than the new max_packet_size, and if the server accepts 0-RTT. But the fact is that by sending a packet that is larger than 1200 bytes, the client is already taking the risk that 0-RTT packets might get dropped (by the network).

Also, I do not see why endpoints have to be required to drop packets (or datagrams) that is greater than the advertised value.

I think we can simply say that max_packet_size (or max_datagram_size) is an advisory value, much like max_idle_timeout.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: