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

Lucas Pardue <> Mon, 30 March 2020 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6223A1828 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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_20=0.7, 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 CqfXRvnDsxrw for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7085A3A1833 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:23:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585585409; bh=2hmFUBQ5CvE8YmGsg9RjWj/Xe3Jts1FRtafnqdAA7g0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WcDQFvjXJuvCuAeYog2r87isFzHYhBIHL3uV01soPmpRbJwkFSLQaZMJoAqPtlW3w EAoy/dqlToiZ3l4DR1MGCNHwo3UXjJ/Lh4mkxuEXxHT3gqr4NyIUpcz6iYofwsK2OW WpSfqbYdmpOP3PoD81GPQVQe+7sV7BZOcKP8IxJc=
From: Lucas Pardue <>
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_5e821d0191263_7d503f9aa4ecd960895fc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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, 30 Mar 2020 16:23:41 -0000

My read of the discussion on this issue is that there may be some pain but that it can be overcome without design changes to quicv1.

@huitema said:

> I also don't advocate holding V1 at the gate to solve that. I like the suggestion to allow shorter initial packets and to limit the number of bytes that the server sends. But i get that we may want to wait for V2 for that.

As the issue creator, and given what you said in the quoted paragraph, would you be satisfied if the issue were marked `quicv2` label and closed?

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