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

Kazuho Oku <> Sun, 15 March 2020 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8AA3A1D08 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 14:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ALx6-a1VfBk0 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 14:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 219D03A1D05 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 14:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDE39604DC for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 14:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1584309486; bh=TZWGGZuWdGqbtoL+HAXR7B05IMQf1WngRoM/MiTuj2I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yJvolFPyOPCUNfjcoZT9fvoN49NRMukEYgsBK8+6SEUb9AkmENS11cMPXp6zBZ1ye l4BbdLts+EsnzNWx/s6KDw047HCiEMBHXBzZuzGQlbCrn5CfTyLYx/6+nwsaval1cH Tzi8SkH5wUxjreVWjwKuVA2pKdNtKIli4GYLwfis=
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 14:58:06 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5e6ea4ee1fe78_5aaf3fcd3fccd96c1887fa"; 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
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: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 21:58:08 -0000

@martinduke It would be the same.

Assuming that the `minimal_initial_packet_size` used for client-sent packets are going to be at least 400 bytes, a server would always have room to send one full-size packet. Therefore, the server can send a Retry, or start immediately with sending the TLS handshake messages. The only difference is that when the server does the latter, it's initial send window will be 1 MTU rather than 3 MTU.

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