Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_packet_size in 0-RTT (#3447)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 21 February 2020 00:20 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 612511207FD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:20:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 pkSSl7tnFqUn for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E02F1202DD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:20:39 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1582244439; bh=PHauT/etnns/X/n1VyjRW34UsV3looe8oil89u7pfxg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PPhk7DAzeQaX8K7c7qVdTou8z49bHy0CroaqH89km9kALy78yEoepv2xTVRAeHFOH y5klwN5EPnsASoMphDCtxo9M/i0DooAmlgP9fItMsTAqd1XeOUW88v6EeuQrZsp5uW MqJOWHvvt4ZTF3E/IqQ7bElvbcaHMKoqvMyIPSFE=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYX2PFBJQ6XNHDUAAV4LRKNPEVBNHHCDDCFOU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447/589437605@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3447@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_packet_size in 0-RTT (#3447)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4f2257b019c_46723ff065ecd96c235a1"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/ukOop_Zxel4CulghlFHkm7XcI5M>
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: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:20:42 -0000

> While I don't have a strong opinion on this, I think I'd prefer to just close this with no action, or at most an editorial change, thus forcing clients to remember the value. Freeing the client is not a lot of value add for protocol churn at this stage.

I think the counter argument would be that it does not cause churn, because clients that are willing to remember the value can.

Also, assuming that we agree that "max_packet_size" was in fact "max_udp_payload_size" (as we've been discussing in #3473), I'd point out that applying the "max_udp_payload_size" of the previous connection is going to be pretty complex. A client should not be sending a coalesced datagram that is greater than "max_udp_payload_size" until it learns that peer's maximum for the current connection. Therefore, a client would be having different limits on the packet size depending of if it is generating a coalesced packet.

I am not sure if we should design our protocol based on such a complex (and IMO fragile) design.

-- 
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/3447#issuecomment-589437605