IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Frames vs. Frame (#3804)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Thu, 02 July 2020 14:07 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 62F463A082C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 07:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 s3vHcsDkXRDW for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 07:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FEDF3A0816 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 07:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f1f7af9.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f1f7af9.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.111.13]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BE566034B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 07:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1593698851; bh=WEwWvoNeV2a4WOZ3GjPNiWru0IpsybrDtQ+08U69HU0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yGmh7ftNW44s0PRasbqkNt/5fi2lklWBfyRSiNZk8Lsq9SuxwpvS9w9kjrsimoCYi WfnWvwda+/RFee4/cAIz4syJfojV3jorqQALaAirqzZJ3f56qlK6Pb+n0y453gbiJ8 05fEZNXLKeebFJx/e1Mh4NUFEq/gDlXhJl2LMIl8=
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 07:07:31 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKY7YYMLJXF2O7IN6OF5BHFSHEVBNHHCNKCHVA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3804/653026999@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3804@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3804@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Frames vs. Frame (#3804)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5efdea23e1277_29683fecbc0cd9684787fc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/AA5FZz_B0gDZojZfJnE0QyeP5Nc>
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, 02 Jul 2020 14:07:34 -0000

Two reasons.  The first is simply consistency -- something technically correct that still looks like an error might not be worth defending.  The second is the question of whether there are in fact multiple types versus a single type with flags.

I can see the alternate view, that there are two different ACK frames and the section describes those two frame types.  The same is true for CONNECTION_CLOSE, where there are two types with different implications. Both of these *were* two distinct frame types in previous drafts.

For me, that view breaks down with STREAM, unless you want to say there are eight types of STREAM frame and the section describes all eight.  The section describes a single STREAM frame with flags embedded in the type byte.

-- 
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/3804#issuecomment-653026999

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status