Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding requirement seems to be incorrect. (#3053)

MikkelFJ <> Mon, 23 September 2019 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605A0120052 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 3VxSjNqfhQGS for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CBB12004F for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:35:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1569224115; bh=YPzAG+TG+KbvJ5/HktUlKf8QBvi+UbRQBHIby6ejbbk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AFggPdL/V1Lf0q5x2dzzvfXUsgrD8heZe3rwtAMBYy6HxBAwKLhLoFUeAAQWyWPt6 PGOS5iX3+4w9m1QmUuDfNAWPwC/3DtWoV6aKap5pZhq0mhWIBESKfQ1j14nEvTU9GS 3PZY1Xrq7N0Cvnwp/HQ5rFmjJO8xsf5mX7xfiFJI=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3053/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding requirement seems to be incorrect. (#3053)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d8875b3cf124_77ed3f8c1dccd95c3317c2"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:35:19 -0000

I wonder - if 0-RTT does not have huge certificates, would it not make sense to permit small packets in this case, provided the auth token validates. But in other cases 1200 bytes must be provided. But since 0-RTT might fail, this could then require a retransmission. Restrained devices might be prefer the latter.

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