I think we are getting distracted from the point which is to consider the whole connection time when assessing handshake impact. Even an extra RTT due to initcwnd=10 becomes less and less significant when we are talking about 5+ RTTs to establish the conn and transfer >50KB of data.
Interestingly enough, for the example page size in question (72KB), the total connection time includes the same number of RTTs (assuming initcwnd=10~=15KB): - Classical case: 1 for the TCP handshake + 1 for the TLS handshake + 3 for the data (15+30+27) - PQ case: 1 for the TCP handshake + 2 for the TLS handshake + 2 for the data (30+42) OK, this is just because of how 72KB aligns with the TCP congestion window increasing. From: Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <u...@ll.mit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 7:16 PM To: resea...@bensmyth.com Cc: Bas Westerbaan <b...@cloudflare.com>; Kampanakis, Panos <kpa...@amazon.com>; TLS@ietf.org; Childs-Klein, Will <chi...@amazon.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [EXT] Re: [TLS] Time to first byte vs time to last byte Please, let us not assume every website is behind a CDN. Isn't that assumption reasonable? At least for global websites --- without CDN performance sucks. Of course it isn’t. As a reference point: Consider reading the New York Times in Canberra, Well, if you have nothing better to do there… ;-) doesn't happen without CDN Of course. The whole point is not to assume every website is behind CDN. Which part of “every” is unclear? Of course there are sites behind a CDN of some kind. And there are sites that are not. It is stupid unwise to ignore that.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
