Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transition (#2466)
Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 14 February 2019 22:39 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 B2E00131215 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:39:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 zM-vJOt70jFZ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:39:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DA1812D4EA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:39:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:39:03 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1550183943; bh=vkk0Wr3a344YXqWRWE6oUz2cPMo80N1F9plAuGVDmZU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BHWGEpzbN6z9IASK69caV28QmJEDDEGt0WmKI1nl2gPOvY58P5Vfip7k15WjBjnsh hieaYn4J9oFHBAFDjvXzBDHUclhJYcbuJ655dxHljaWK8fs5brdRFiCCid3DWKIgql vBoIjura5910z9LzSvbg1VsXYRG6YZDmerA2QgTY=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abbb7a025f69965f324bd9da79d88899d1af63405792cf00000001187db00792a169ce1877f890@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2466/c463831514@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2466@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2466@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transition (#2466)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c65ee0788c3f_6fa23fde7acd45b81388a4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/4MS2Hvhe-UF-J5DujRb0ZZ43g60>
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 22:39:06 -0000
> It's entirely possible that we spec #2461 and people implement #2466 as a good-enough way of achieving the requirement. :-) That's OK. Because #2461 establishes the right expectations for new transport parameters, whereas this doesn't. If the complaint about #2461 is the complexity of enforcement, given that it is a MAY-strength requirement, I fail to see what the fuss is all about. -- 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/2466#issuecomment-463831514
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transition … Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… David Schinazi
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Bound 0-to-1-RTT Transit… Mike Bishop