[quicwg/base-drafts] d08172: Include max_udp_payload

[quicwg/base-drafts] d08172: Include max_udp_payload_size in packet size discus...

Martin Thomson <noreply@github.com> Wed, 13 May 2020 00:51 UTC

Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 17:51:23 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <noreply@github.com>
To: quic-issues@ietf.org
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/push/refs/heads/max-udp-pmtud/000000-d08172@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] d08172: Include max_udp_payload_size in packet size discus...
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/DRpr3QIitjtZn-8h-KZacUwRo20>
Precedence: list

  Branch: refs/heads/max-udp-pmtud
  Home:   https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts
  Commit: d081726ce4ab18213d9cd65fe19cbb82ef2e52e0
      https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/commit/d081726ce4ab18213d9cd65fe19cbb82ef2e52e0
  Author: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
  Date:   2020-05-13 (Wed, 13 May 2020)

  Changed paths:
    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

  Log Message:
  -----------
  Include max_udp_payload_size in packet size discussion

This isn't a complete dissertation on how clients might choose to use
larger packet sizes.  In particular, it doesn't capture the whole
discussion about starting at a higher size being a way to raise the 1280
to something higher, with the requisite cost being that you might have
failures.  Deciding to put that in would be much harder.

What this does is just say that the transport parameter acts as a
further limit on packet size and that you won't know that prior to
knowing.  That means that you are guessing about the network path AND
your peer when you decide to send >1200 (to be fair, the former really
only applies for IPv4, and it's not much of a guess).

Closes #3638.

[quicwg/base-drafts] d08172: Include max_udp_payl… Martin Thomson