Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unclear conditions in long header descr. (#2719)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Fri, 17 May 2019 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07A81201D4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gVQ8o5Y7ysaX for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 390941201B0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 11:10:23 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558116624; bh=X0BCDVxvhH7Wd0VMp2UfUMp9/Rba0AVNdL1xPvMtOiM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WHeaoIG/ynYmWzHOt2G1ju40zdNdH2j+LUk0fuzrsJQr+D9AakT6dF0PFRMadbim3 Y8XgCDNz3mENup0/9YO97mjLERCxji1BaaHyZPE3Op7iMM5+iB/oT5wHm8cP3a0T7n SWcV+dKamorej1BN8kUS6DQeqzYnYY5M0QWNySQc=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYLHS7J2WGKX2C5I5V25QVY7EVBNHHBVDSZ4Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2719/493547749@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2719@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2719@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unclear conditions in long header descr. (#2719)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cdef90fe7db0_168f3fd2a36cd9681041436"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/0UiME9zCXX2IP80gYK7eiOAcR9s>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 18:10:27 -0000

Multiple issues listed here.  Please consider opening separate issues rather than lumping them all together.

(1) This is old language we agreed to in Chicago.  The requirement to shift to short headers was 1-RTT key availability and version agreement, to accommodate versions where the final keys might be available immediately (i.e. out-of-band agreement) but version negotiation still had to complete.

However, that's a principle for the invariants or such a version, not a requirement of this QUIC version -- and the version negotiation language this referenced is gone now.

(2) What is "Application PN space"?  0-RTT and 1-RTT?  If so, then no -- 0-RTT packets carry application data but are long-header packets.

(3) Unrelated editorial suggestion -- please open a separate issue.

-- 
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/issues/2719#issuecomment-493547749