Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Generalizing QUIC to allow underlying tranports other than UDP (#4061)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

> One thing I noticed is that while most of QUIC is agnostic to the addressing format, the packet advertising the new address is rather not extensible, being isomorphic to `(Optional<(Ipv4, Port)>, Optional<(Ipv6, Port)>)` (in pseudo-Rust), rather than some sort tagged enum that would be more extensible.

That's a fair point; it's bound to the assumption of IP and some kind of port underlying it.  That said, it's also not core to the protocol -- an implementation that was addressed differently could simply define a parallel transport parameter that carries a different address type.  You're right that this might be made more generic by supplying a count-prefixed list of addresses, each of which contained an enum address type followed by a length-prefixed address blob; I don't think there's appetite for such generality when the alternative of a new TP type is cheap.

-- 
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/4061#issuecomment-686603154