Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)

Will Hawkins <notifications@github.com> Mon, 13 January 2020 18:24 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 B6B1A1209E1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:24:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 K_lteYhuuPHu for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:24:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66C391209F2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:24:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B905208B1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:24:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1578939856; bh=r5bXBgK1NLwyytd6S0nvouq/Hm3yFH2KmcNRNXi2ixY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=VOHr9vjwcqN/tSSPaSHAjpOOJq7apxXX81L2ypamvoWUGL5ieB0tJrCMyvc4ceGeU oCoy5pyzemOw1vHhEKzXGqse69qB5PW9TPIrBeW+krROwE2VfySscL79PmISRIlP3o YP2GfJ8q1uXwt27RNCnyOHgRcuuSm3OW3JOMEouE=
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:24:16 -0800
From: Will Hawkins <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4N4EHYFI43NWM6DOV4FHUFBEVBNHHCBMO65M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333/573801530@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e1cb5d0dc10e_3b733fbe60acd95c1212f0"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: hawkinsw
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/VYwwrAMHcatFk-j8rhnLWEuPTG0>
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: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 18:24:20 -0000

> As @ekr pointed out, this type of padding doesn't allow coalescing 0.5RTT server data with the server's first flight, so it limits coalescing in common use cases, though I agree may be easier to implement.

A server is not *required* pad, is it? https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#name-packet-size

> 
> To me, the biggest risk here is that the non-QUIC padding is removed by something on the path. However, that risk seems similar to the risk that something on the path would split a coalesced packet into two UDP datagrams(discussed in #3317), so it seems acceptable.
> 
> Because it prevents coalescing in some useful cases, I don't think it should be recommended, but I can't come up with a strong reason for disallowing it, so I think it should continue to be allowed.



-- 
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/3333#issuecomment-573801530