Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/21/21 9:46 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: I also got told that signing a zone is tantamount to "boiling the ocean". You're misquoting David. He said: On 2021-4-20, at 20:20, David Schinazi wrote: I'm not saying that a 3-packet handshake would be bad, I'm saying that it's not worth boiling the

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/21/21 7:16 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: Hi, On 2021-4-21, at 16:57, Michael Thomas wrote: And that was apparently enough to cause the chairs to go ballistic. It was not polite whatsoever. It was a first class snarl. the message that was sent said: "This thread is not discuss

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/20/21 6:27 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: Having read the thread, I think the chairs handled this appropriately. You made a suggestion, several people, most notably David Schinazi told you why they didn't think that it was an improvement, and you responded by complaining that David didn't wan

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/20/21 6:27 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: Having read the thread, I think the chairs handled this appropriately. You made a suggestion, several people, most notably David Schinazi told you why they didn't think that it was an improvement, and you responded by complaining that David didn't want

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/20/21 6:31 PM, Lucas Pardue wrote: Michael, On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, 02:19 Michael Thomas, <mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote: [] if anybody is baffled by this, you should read the thread on the ietf list about "snarling". the wg chairs are a classic example. th

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

[] if anybody is baffled by this, you should read the thread on the ietf list about "snarling". the wg chairs are a classic example. their fiefdom was challenged. it was utterly predictable, and I called it before hand. Mike

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/20/21 5:43 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:18 PM Eric Rescorla > wrote: To follow up on what David Schinazi says, the primary determinant of handshake latency for a protocol like TLS or QUIC is not the total number of packets but

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/20/21 10:57 AM, Lucas Pardue wrote: Hi, Chair hat on. This thread is not discussing a QUIC-specific issue. There are more appropriate venues to discuss the merits of TLS, DANE and PKIs. Please take it there. Typical, and predictable. This also confirms exactly why people don't want

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

ld standard? Mike David On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:15 AM Michael Thomas <mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote: On 4/20/21 10:07 AM, David Schinazi wrote: Hi Mike, I read your blog post, and I failed to find what problem you're trying to solve. The fact that so

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

tion. From what I can tell, it takes it from an 8 packet exchange to a 5 packet exchange. If you were to use a DANE-like solution that would be a 3 packet exchange most of the time. Why is a 5 packet exchange good but a 3 packet exchange not? Mike David On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:39 PM Mich

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/19/21 3:33 PM, Lucas Pardue wrote: I'm struggling to see what the problem statement that is unique to the QUIC protocol is. That certificates can be large is not new information, it was a prime motivator for RFC 7924 [1] and RFC 8879 [2]. Operators can, of course, experiment with new

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/19/21 1:45 PM, Matt Joras wrote: Hi, Note that there is a TLS feature which reduces the crypto (TLS) data needed to be sent during the handshake considerably, resumption. The vast majority of QUIC connections in our deployment (and TCP + TLS for that matter) are resumed. In a typical resu

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/19/21 2:32 PM, Matt Joras wrote: 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)

Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

On 4/19/21 1:45 PM, Matt Joras wrote: Hi, Note that there is a TLS feature which reduces the crypto (TLS) data needed to be sent during the handshake considerably, resumption. The vast majority of QUIC connections in our deployment (and TCP + TLS for that matter) are resumed. In a typical resu

Quic: the Elephant in the Room

Hi all, I wrote a blog post called Quic: the Elephant in the Room and posted it to the ietf list which generated a lot of comments, so maybe it's worthwhile for this list to consider as well. The jist is getting the Quic startup exchange back down to a 3 way handshake and very analogous to th