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

ianswett <> Sat, 14 March 2020 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A013A0947 for <>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 11:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 Ca8MBr-JGxQK for <>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 11:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C78F83A0946 for <>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 11:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EBCC60619 for <>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 11:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1584210491; bh=BUsBae7kextaRhYlSik6ReHi3pl0faAepS9IiFHSa7w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1N27yFtrNqD+jTm3ISnLPA9lnh7n5/tC46TEceVKFZIFeqDFQqBHxmVZDoMM4xcnR 8X4w6ltueDo+6tXavAfbI1C3+bE5O3CCzQ3x9YpkOoFBd3zi5KyrPSjUzrVvcSZwIq RGTLz9UcohUlSY+wQjY2hajqTlobxu3x4hcFCp28=
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 11:28:11 -0700
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3523/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding overhead in DNS over QUIC scenarios (#3523)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e6d223bd866a_403a3fcf0eecd96c284979"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 18:28:14 -0000

Agreed about PMTU.  A smaller packet size would only truly be a win if it was expected larger payloads were rare enough that this would not significantly increase the packet count.  In the case of DNS, particularly from client to server, that seems plausible to me.

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