Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 03:11 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 963CE129413 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, 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 44LO-33sGPaM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext3.iad.github.net [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10F941200C5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:11:21 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1492657881; bh=+Q3IAms324s38qe2DMjKX/1+5AjbXbPDlOlkxNN7/fs=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Hk5/U1IDaIeIIjdaTnxzMSNJVZrfRwngqJMbtVaUv1gKI6j6PSXR5VzE/65TwRZNH 3dpJpxfXWzkp/q4gLhemFSq6NBfUxRolC4cUeQHKvKsnZGCNmLkY98IZOSpaQHxWOk mm9EmuzXn0+vxFrid1IrzPAUE6c4Uk83+DcFwi0A=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba6ab3fdc27b3b5730f471d36c5d28fa05f45e52392cf00000001150fe8d992a169ce0cb56ac8@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383/295562888@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58f826d969fa7_7a9c3f7ffa5efc2c75073"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/eN8XLxY1Ip-n6uJSpo6sM6uW0Ug>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:11:24 -0000
Relevant to this discussion: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-tls-record-limit - the same reasons for doing that apply here. Interestingly, this would allow an endpoint to specify a limit lower than 1280 for encrypted packets, but I think that's OK. (The degree to which we intend to support constrained implementations determines how relevant this feature might be.) -- 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/383#issuecomment-295562888
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maxim… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson