Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify Actions on nonzero Reserved Bits (#2280)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

I think that mentioning both types of protection is fine, but the parenthetical was a little strange.

> @@ -3402,9 +3402,10 @@ Reserved Bits (R):
 
 : The next two bits (those with a mask of 0x0c) of byte 0 are reserved.  These
   bits are protected using header protection (see Section 5.4 of {{QUIC-TLS}}).
-  The value included prior to protection MUST be set to 0.  An endpoint MUST
-  treat receipt of a packet that has a non-zero value for these bits after
-  removing protection as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
+  The value included prior to protection MUST be set to 0.  An endpoint MUST treat
+  receipt of a packet that has a non-zero value for these bits after removing
+  packet (not just header) protection as a connection error of type

It's both.  My suggestion would be:

```suggestion
  packet and header protection as a connection error of type
```

> @@ -3529,8 +3530,8 @@ Reserved Bits (R):
   bits are protected using header protection (see Section 5.4 of
   {{QUIC-TLS}}).  The value included prior to protection MUST be set to 0.  An
   endpoint MUST treat receipt of a packet that has a non-zero value for these
-  bits after removing protection as a connection error of type
-  PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
+  bits after removing packet (not just header) protection as a connection error

```suggestion
  bits after removing packet and header protection as a connection error
```

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2280#pullrequestreview-190515153