Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Change max_packet_size to max_datagram_size (#3471)

David Schinazi <> Fri, 21 February 2020 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C5712081A for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:56:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 wNnjQ2xZEKi2 for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:56:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEEED1200FF for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:56:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF9326164F for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:56:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1582307780; bh=XYkZ86e9lrLJkrhOfu20crSGJkYY6sT1IwoOVYNlj0E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=i0VwNu6dF6ooSxpHNeztSoBXK9eJ2+Z9ldM2yR17Vjj24bwTzlHa3RTHsmdGvPOTt NozGQ7Wa9fVXfqitXYN/f8X2Cn2BsK76P3WeSJtK5o6xX4XefMZ8kcYVFle3wJ9KeY hElBCS/rmmxZysycKnoSJ4oaL8lfk4whRIuvCbLY=
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:56:20 -0800
From: David Schinazi <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3471/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Change max_packet_size to max_datagram_size (#3471)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e5019c4479f4_fd83fef0eccd96c1817b0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:56:23 -0000

I really don't think we should place a limit on retry token size. This is very much a case of
> - Doctor! It hurts when I put my hand on the hot stove!
> - Don't do that, then!"

Also, I don't see
> - My AES-GCM-128 code cannot handle inputs that are 1221 bytes long!

as a real world problem, and we shouldn't engineer around this theoretical.

I would very much be in favor of making this `max_udp_payload_size` and making it apply to all packet types.

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