[quicwg/base-drafts] Invariants definition of Unused in Version Negotiation packet (#3827)

Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com> Mon, 06 July 2020 08:33 UTC

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:33:15 -0700
From: Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZI2BJIFOQFUVR7MUV5B3BMXEVBNHHCNUWVL4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3827@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invariants definition of Unused in Version Negotiation packet (#3827)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f02e1cb257ad_212e3ff32bacd95c1468a4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/5CWRN5pbaqTNy2zHha-i0CaA04g>

For -09 in WG LC.

Section 6 has a packet header structure with the field:

Unused (7)

All the other fields are either fixed value or kind of defined earlier. In fact I would argue they represent concepts that are defined in -transport. Thus a second part of this is if -transport needs to be normative reference for the concepts used in this document. 

But back to Unused: I think this field can take any value on transmission, and should be ignored on reception. Maybe this needs to be noted explicitly in Section 6. 

-- 
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/3827

[quicwg/base-drafts] Invariants definition of Unu… Magnus Westerlund
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invariants definition of… Mike Bishop
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invariants definition of… Martin Thomson