Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding overhead in DNS over QUIC scenarios (#3523)

ekr <> Thu, 19 March 2020 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C983A044F for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 08:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 Xfs892d45V92 for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 08:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B0783A044D for <>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 08:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 08:17:20 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1584631041; bh=tBuePgf6BLkmX8w6IuAVnA3g0PQMhIF1kynpfV5nr4A=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=fSaCJaM1W06jAXEmP129SaXdaD39Z8iECEUl/GyfgtTw1VetmnA2vITrZD98ceyrT i5VlAZgvFAg0miekVvuZZyEzaW6hbb3G05R3CSeCQg4seC6vQV7ZiYv4yFy8ZwGUM1 dEynwkmrziDzyBZ/L2vlNGEQrM5J2sAbLlO9/Dfs=
From: ekr <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3523/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding overhead in DNS over QUIC scenarios (#3523)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e738d00eabc1_5d623f93a0ecd95c886dd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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, 19 Mar 2020 15:17:26 -0000

Won't DoQ need a different ALPN?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 5:06 PM Christian Huitema <>

> I don't like the idea of creating a version of Quic especially for DNS
> over Quic, because of the privacy implications. Of course it could be
> negotiated and remembered, but then it looks like painting the packets with
> a big target for various kinds of firewall filtering. But then using
> shorter initials also paints a big target.
> I also don't advocate holding V1 at the gate to solve that. I like the
> suggestion to allow shorter initial packets and to limit the number of
> bytes that the server sends. But i get that we may want to wait for V2 for
> that.
> For now, I will concentrate on other optimizations, such as limiting the
> packet overhead. That can be done with implementation guidance.
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <>,
> or unsubscribe
> <>
> .

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