Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 4/19/21 2:32 PM, Matt Joras wrote:
> 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.
To put a fine point on it, I'm saying a Google-like company is in the 
position to run an *experiment* just like they did for Quic. Apparently 
Chrome at one point supported DANE but Google didn't do the obvious and 
support it server side so they could find out whether it could make a 
difference or not. They took it out when predictably nobody supported it.

Mike