Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Certificate Scenario (#3784)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

The thing about the dataset there is that certificate sizes are driven more by the requirements of the current environment.  That is, where address validation has already occurred and you are only bound by congestion control limits.  There are obviously factors that push people to take advantage of the space available, that primarily being the inclusion of more names.  But in the presence of new pressures and new possibilities will create a new incentive structure.

ECDSA isn't exactly new, but it leads to much smaller certificate sizes.  People deploying QUIC will be able to use ECDSA and to request that their CA do the same for intermediates.

That isn't to say that compression isn't worthwhile, but I don't think that it is as critical as Patrick's study might suggest.

-- 
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/3784#issuecomment-649938850