Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

Matt Joras <> Mon, 19 April 2021 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C569F3A4512 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n2IXyX9Fy0L5 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDCFA3A4510 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g8so58310710lfv.12 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kU/xcJeAIi3griOrNkL3Vi3p17+uiSZx/EFDdbDM45w=; b=koHMG8Yk28BgOfOJOMyCzQSfhVtKdNZ0kPKDzP9xasZMJYK0j3UAdj36unsv3I3zIb geYeXz1qZO0KHdL5zIpCRf18aEnCyPk4IB3GXD51SdUwrW4raxNf9G5ynQNkiXuCfEcu oXGNityjER3AFPe9UUnrwjdIJlrYdhebCx0Rf2IZehjaXpLS1dXfUmgtD0/jc7PsibbM /vVdTVHc2phYHmGupUqAFjIiIzgm+EIf4Ay015X+CyLQd+cy2DWhkL1r6rMxmH2eu4Qw +eYjAA0UhFvHOP1DbcFnHf5aepcVc8jHOXiBdEZsY/rfKQ7bqzhLtD/2AJJxyysEHe/D hV3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kU/xcJeAIi3griOrNkL3Vi3p17+uiSZx/EFDdbDM45w=; b=Y5Lz4o7POXc/0rjNsG7YSmJ20AHOorz3VTJnS6wM+764o2DcwOtZQTpfD4PRuwWRhz 6k6xX3trCPfI6vBewP1dt9ziG7nyBq3ccCwV7pD24hDx/agvfsBAiC1Qi/Q3ZVS/SABf hDf9xu0v/fTGKICgIz+5UIiJape7DXkvUn01Lj2X3b1oTD9IhPLx/4Dbts85q7LbOEY/ 9uzki7Al4pqBgF1N+L88m3G4cawvr9OUSeuke/qw9ucKGfEaJEGxkWwzz5kyh+9UC1Qd MuVRmjT/GgCuUh6EibajtYtk46FBBeJ2Bpdqh5xji3AycTinuPsyY91fvZ95FqoKGgp7 lmUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FAOSp3j6oezoQbl7QlUbTgvwaY4koxNjXQSGFfNeFjggz8Jh2 0YOQOyhcRPEM2Uxat8f3oPtQkmdvFmLxcN7hdq8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzw+cy9mL1XWE3RI0TmD78iFECMfgMe5OtmSRxYlMPfrD5TjhM4UTSD/Pc1CkLSvBCprxc0i2+c+rbeJfQ4hnM=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c7ca:: with SMTP id x193mr13097602lff.273.1618867942897; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Matt Joras <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:32:12 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room
To: Paul Vixie <>
Cc: Michael Thomas <>, IETF QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 21:32:31 -0000

Hi Paul,

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:13 PM Paul Vixie <> 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