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

ianswett <> Sat, 14 March 2020 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C6E3A087F for <>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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_16=1.092, 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 4ghPaXPp8Rxk for <>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CFF23A087C for <>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:40:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1584207615; bh=em1iyOuTb3fQQuvXt8iuC4dZeieTULDO4ZwE7SdSF9A=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SWcC1sS8ypAWC6Aclz366M7IJTUtsMiIB8NgnXRHDlYR7yvLUx20BHSGn+HLwDfTe LBDhNFJCsn9FWxFTVQC73xIdt09xzXqhdjoSDxZAS4dlziGgkHoddKfVLFUj1NI2Zz nrj9HW9e1L94u6Z/rplNtL/Ry4R3GHgd0dZuNfQo=
From: ianswett <>
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_5e6d16fff7b3_5bd43fef4accd96c24332c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 17:40:22 -0000

I can also imagine an application specifying a smaller minimum packet size.  That removes the dependency upon the resumption case and remembering the new transport param.

But if that argument holds, then the transport doc should have a smaller limit(400 would be an absolute minimum as Kazuho points out, but I think something closer the the minimum v4 packet size of 576 bytes makes sense, so maybe 512?), and applications like HTTP/3 can specify a higher limit(ie: 1200).

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