Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

[Matt Joras <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:13 PM Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> hello. can you explain how you get from:
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:45:48PM -0700, Matt Joras wrote:
> > ... The
> > vast majority of QUIC connections in our deployment (and TCP + TLS for
> > that matter) are resumed.
>
> to:
>
> > ... Resumption makes
> > this particular concern a non-issue for most real world connections
> > and has other positive benefits.
>
> that is, how is your deployment known to represent most real world use?

There was implied context to those statements. In Mike's blog post and
subsequent emails it is clear he's talking about typical Internet
browser-like use cases, which is why he suggests someone "Google-like"
might benefit from this sort of system to reduce the amount of data
transferred during the handshake. I am referring to the same class of
usage when I say "most real world connections". Perhaps I should have
qualified more but I figured that was implicit.

>
> i love resumption -- that's why RFC 6013 had it. but i also love DANE, which
> is having strong success in the SMTPS market but has been eschewed by the
> HTTPS market. thus my question as to how the QUIC team is prioritizing use
> cases. "big tech" is shiny but not nec'ily representative of the whole web.

Again, Mike's blog post is specifically suggesting that this might be
worthwhile for a "big tech" company to explore. I am simply giving a
couple reasons why this may not be the case from my perspective.

>
> --
> Paul Vixie

Matt Joras