Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] A fixed transport parameter profile is legitimate (#3429)

ekr <> Thu, 06 February 2020 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA0E12001A for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 02:30:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.373
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.373 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_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yslfy9nPdulB for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 02:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC5B1200D6 for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 02:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:30:50 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580985050; bh=WKIXPZl7S78epFw5M0za+V81umgk8nvfucssNqj4Nlk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1Qjg+CdiP93rN0ka1CrbaKRSI6HFAtta0+C6Pri5eUgP0/D3hluA7Euiv1ucUEhHC 53CCaPHImssZPWMiW6WsZjT2klHCXd5gSx1SGGma8k/XipMrIHnLuvOa1ugMl8QSd8 DO/KVXXCcZFFmkdrvAUXEQjXahtVz4mbfVqOTHp4=
From: ekr <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3429/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] A fixed transport parameter profile is legitimate (#3429)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3beada56c41_430d3ffb740cd960263922"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:30:54 -0000

I'd like to understand what your argument is here. Is it that you *must not* condition your response, or merely that it is not necessary to.

For instance, you suppose we have a set of extensions that exist and that those extensions need to be jointly agreed on whether they will be done. The client supports some set E_c and the set of extensions E_s. The client clearly sends E_c. Is your argument that the server must send E_s and not E_c \cap E_s and the client must compute the intersection? Or that it might send either?

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: