[quicwg/base-drafts] Can Retry or VNego be compound with other packets? (#1292)

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Fri, 13 April 2018 23:14 UTC

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:14:37 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab4d467aad951821e3b7a84c4c19994a26f960ed7f92cf0000000116e8fbdd92a169ce12bb7538@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1292@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Retry or VNego be compound with other packets? (#1292)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ad139dd1dca1_757f3fea1fbf0f38837e4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/8RdunxFZPRoVFt9WphRVpm9Fy88>

The spec now says that "A sender can coalesce multiple QUIC packets (typically a Cryptographic Handshake packet and a Protected packet) into one UDP datagram." Should that be qualified?

For example, does it make sense to compound a Version Negotiation packet with any other packet? Of course, there is no length field in VNego, but one might imagine combining a handshake packet and a VNego packet, maybe as away to send an ACK for the client init. My feeling is "don't do that". Should it be said?

The same goes for the stateless retry packet. Does it make sense to combine it with a handshake packet?



-- 
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/1292

[quicwg/base-drafts] Can Retry or VNego be compou… Christian Huitema
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Retry or VNego be co… Mike Bishop
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Retry or VNego be co… Kazuho Oku
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Retry or VNego be co… Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Retry or VNego be co… Martin Thomson