Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_datagram_size being a variable means other constants become variables (#3205)

Gorry Fairhurst <> Tue, 19 November 2019 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1322A120232 for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:32:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 GrfkvqvlsbpJ for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99DA112004E for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968606A1241 for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:32:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574130737; bh=GQhkIixgYVOrT8YUS+NnPzZ0reKsYewglZ1VBDWQQ9s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qdCjwejk42gEqEQQ0lgfyrk5FGLau0hdeEDV+23HVRHA6hJPIhoIQwTQbeCSBwjgS /eih6SQoHIwAATty5ViWYoaM7p5vdemRMpkIqgyiuzAM7u1mZxzYg66YCN7dFTIrSj HidXYFxwOuek7iE9J8sRPFV/VHzES1QOmdbgwJQw=
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:32:17 -0800
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3205/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_datagram_size being a variable means other constants become variables (#3205)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd3543187384_18ff3f923f0cd968515dc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:32:20 -0000

I have thoughts... I suggest the currently definition wrt max_datagram_size raises new safety issues. I am not sure a minimum of 10 * max_datagram_size, where max datagram, is say 9KB or 16KB, is actually something that is safe. From what I recall, the MSS term in IW for TCP related to sub 1500B MSS, and the need to constrain, not safe to expand. I suggest we define this in terms of the base size of 1280B. 

There is also an evil pathology in IPv4, where this can result in a router on path fragmenting larger packets to result in intense bursts of packets. 

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