Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Certificate Scenario (#3784)
Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Wed, 24 June 2020 17:32 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 A4EBF3A10A7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 n-8U150vXze0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C1DD3A1074 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.110.15]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94228E0031 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1593019966; bh=1sCax+iWe5RAVMw3CVpcyCYodnr+/JeChtp8xVXFA8M=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aTH5LV6GRhgZ4VdmkrFAqvtZSwSzQFFR72YJeObVYahwJn5LDj6GaylHd6Tz6FLUV P3Fpx0V9dGfaQ4V7j+IUyMQngMvDNO66U1JrHjctkivz0pGvkbrZUm88hrufsmmE+k 4uGd6AgRZX0EAb1b1KBGkUiSYCPH1DbyCgMwhqfU=
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:32:46 -0700
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKY4AUUMS7BA3IVGPRN475XT5EVBNHHCMZSKYY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3784/648960579@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3784@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3784@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Certificate Scenario (#3784)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ef38e3e84e82_1c33fed178cd964141899"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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/yhPgD-qH6-50e3vAyGgrmvKsbRw>
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, 24 Jun 2020 17:32:49 -0000
According to the data in the blog post, we're talking about ~43% of the handshakes sampled (assuming 1200 byte initial packets). If you make the assumption that operators of these websites do the minimal effort possible when updating to HTTP/3 and continue to have the same certificates, that's 43% of handshakes that get no benefit (during the handshake) for using QUIC. Personally, I think it's something the spec should address with a recommendation. -- 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/3784#issuecomment-648960579
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Certifi… Nick Banks
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Nick Banks
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Lars Eggert
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Lars Eggert
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve Large Server Cer… Martin Thomson