Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 06:25 UTC
Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 62A7E129541 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 HfnKippbq4tD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o7.sgmail.github.com (o7.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC07128B37 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=RcS1pBwQ2L1MFszM84Lp24iQloI=; b=WJkdV60msgeHfLm5 DQCuPY5sbfb7wYfm33pxS06nwqddhEz60Z3kM181QfgPyAD7WwzV3lARpTsWQ6B9 Brqq7jqHU/OlznxS0b/mmC6dPpaimsR6gdAOY79NVyWZ6Wz+9CCxvpJPLdyb0ZDj j1muHLaOD7s2zw8HBTFG3AikKcM=
Received: by filter0523p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0523p1mdw1-25081-58C63B3F-3 2017-03-13 06:25:03.065013069 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0001p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id wmXw8ulkS0-faHhj_WfHkw for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:25:03.012 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:25:02 -0700
From: Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383/286024642@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58c63b3ee0d16_53f23fcef8489c3c183990"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3iUmBwiUDGtDuveFl+icaNCMqzszFPYVEafX yt2hZJpzrWNSCyAXEbD/ZmvmNRWDcVA9jsG73kTQMin2p+CeZfeqEC+CNkUwLT+uZnT1puRqOwSpCs NqAcul0HH3ilpxDZrJaA5VOzhI0KE8vXFW6tZrdGXMfO9OHaninzXAy7Dj5KYvrvKq6Yd1dyObl6xZ Q=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/qnFgzdiIwnzHU1p6XA2j2wgGSQY>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:25:06 -0000
If you are a constrained implementation or you know that you are behind a path with PMTU smaller than usual, it is better to let the peer know rather than have the peer waste a round trip (in the best case) to discover this for itself. TCP negotiates MSS. -- 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/383#issuecomment-286024642
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maxim… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson