Re: [TLS] Transport Issues in DTLS 1.3

[Bill Frantz <[e-mail]>]

On 3/30/21 at 2:47 PM, [e-mail] (Martin Duke) wrote:

>To reiterate, I believe introducing latency regressions with respect to
>DTLS 1.2 would be bad for the internet. So what's new in the area under
>discussion is (a) lowering the timeout from 1s to 100ms, and (b) the
>introduction of ACKs.
>
>I would characterize ekr's reply as making the following points:
>
>(1) *DTLS practice at Mozilla and elsewhere already uses timeouts << 1 sec*.
>
>Thanks for this report about the real world. I have no doubt that for
>WebRTC and other use cases, a short timeout is fine. However, DTLS is a
>general-purpose protocol and the standard should be quite conservative
>about the paths this thing is going to run over. Obviously, people are
>going to ignore this requirement when they think they can get an advantage
>no matter what the RFC says.
>
>I see three acceptable ways to proceed:
>(a) stick with 1 second with words saying that given some OOB knowledge you
>can go lower;
>(b) the same, but having an explicit floor of 100ms or 200ms; or
>(c) having a shorter threshold for small flights, as I proposed in my

Are there any issues with space-based paths? I know Elon Musk is 
planning Internet service via many LEO satellites.

If we were talking about going to the moon, that would be a 3 
second delay.

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | Can't fix stupid, but   | Periwinkle
[phone]      | duct tape can muffle the| 150 Rivermead 
Road #235
www.pwpconsult.com | sound... - Bill Liebman | Peterborough, NY 03458