IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make RFC 6928 normative (#3245)

Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com> Wed, 20 November 2019 03:23 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 05A39120A2C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 19:23:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 hTiMW7P3w1dX for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 19:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 590D0120A9A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 19:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AE08C0355 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 19:23:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1574220209; bh=U2LZrEGAm1R3MUtq0mhaDK9XD/IkteSQViQ8k8suA3I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=flmbA7SLYT46lohaMIVot/pkcbFm2YZtvDVVl+r1xq0jOCraMJqrfNyxkbD5VxJbF ETXaumNpCSGicU1/KZW2IT3gEtaPmx4N5k4RhDlTDvY9Tc4sSRsKktl5oZkgH9fnEa r8u4BPIhdsHn74Fi3baHlv2+4Ril23/IXHvTU5Po=
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 19:23:29 -0800
From: Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3OM6YTR2N7SF66TFN34HSDDEVBNHHB6OU3EY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3245/555819489@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3245@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3245@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make RFC 6928 normative (#3245)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd4b1b198a0d_390d3f93720cd95c691f3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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/oHQw2NVVrmeQhO6hZ-ZVkg6OwX4>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:23:35 -0000

My concern is exactly that ... and I'll say why I think this needs thought:

RFC6828 reflects the consensus on using a larger IW, what is safe and how to use. Use of a larger initial window impacts all transports - this RFC was the first (and currently only) decision to allow more in the initial handshake period, even though that was only  EXP -  I did not see data for QUIC analysed, so I think QUIC has followed/joined that experiment, but is not itself an EXP.

If the IETF updates the decisions in RFC6298 because of safety concerns I think this impacts all protocols.



-- 
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/3245#issuecomment-555819489

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email