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

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 24 September 2019 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01F9120045 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
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 pJX5986MTHfX for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 200FD120024 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:21:09 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1569288069; bh=0zgDIiONbH3ogyvQs/s+puEdOtlGOi5559Rxc57As1Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wCNrjx1CHFKIAj/73SacHOQqJcAtAXqjbJR1bX73wVYukHd7UeCBnvbVil0JB5Ffj p2lsgX6fgVbP22sV7FBUHy6R6uRNFRpN0I4tyOYvpFtsFUR05ygOijYjYZIDcNPz3E j/adhUFQGuinK2/IoYnUttjYoMSWo2Ozdyq0xCJk=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5d896f8551df0_6da63f98f04cd95c46817"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 01:21:12 -0000

@mikkelfj Regardless of 0-RTT, for bandwidth constrained deployments, it makes sense to _always_ send a small packet and let the server validate the path.

That said, the chartered goal of V1 is to reduce the connection establishment latency, and we have explicitly decided to require clients to send full-sized packets until the path is validated. I do not think we should revisit that design. Maybe we can in v2.

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