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

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Wed, 18 March 2020 00:06 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 67E393A0BF0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 JmUDl2eZvSOf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDFF33A0BEE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-0f7e7fd.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-0f7e7fd.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.110.17]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43286A11B7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1584489967; bh=HGhaXXrKz0+HRsSyVYAZGUX+Xk3Ear294unTQzbXuc4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GGICzaczil4+BexEISdAaVQbiO+jNNr6T3e2eFdwjWC1KcIkAwCMZgrutDzCKslx1 Ia7D43jJYX+jTsRY1M6/JviQdYt4wOIPQ/XHNRCgVmNFLYwmGbjRXpe2E0SBogguhT vx49i9Cc81Wzfx9XpDGkP8k0VWF6lc9vhsaJrZTQ=
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:06:07 -0700
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5WRIM7THTWMNPXIR54PVDO7EVBNHHCFIPTEI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3523/600358797@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3523@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3523@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding overhead in DNS over QUIC scenarios (#3523)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7165efd37ca_3ffa3f896decd96c2004ba"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
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/pOzzLOoAMe85ZHnx_7bJwEywG2I>
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, 18 Mar 2020 00:06:11 -0000

I don't like the idea of creating a version of Quic especially for DNS over Quic, because of the privacy implications. Of course it could be negotiated and remembered, but then it looks like painting the packets with a big target for various kinds of firewall filtering. But then using shorter initials also paints a big target.

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.

For now, I will concentrate on other optimizations, such as limiting the packet overhead. That can be done with implementation guidance.

-- 
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/3523#issuecomment-600358797