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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 20 February 2020 14:58 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 2161D1200A4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 8N8myTP8Cdxy for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9979D12009C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-292e294.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-292e294.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.102.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD31FA1DD9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:58:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5PKUZ4U3QD7GRFWKN4LPIR5EVBNHHCDDCFOU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447/589092455@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_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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/BqudmBuzwD84LZ-ISZG3Ny__ImQ>
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: 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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447#issuecomment-589092455