IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make transport parameter ID and length varint (#3294)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 21:43 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 CEFA7120025 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 RllE1HqcnCqS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F6212010F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058B8960613 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:43:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576100622; bh=vZy83orTzpD/Smz5qgzZUCMhWbF3oX94tOcJIXv1In0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IZyrXtjtg/3iAlfBk2/HHrydb1Wpc5ss5pHCkrfXMpiHXWOpCHmyJst2dGenK8J7O 6C9Q6DjLjdQpVvXcu209G+67ker66Es/E31+vMe0vFswricjImF6OrvwmvGZ8xfSi9 Tk+Vh2geTJxiRjm17uSPcg0fHP0tYHEbqfLz79W8=
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:43:41 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3Q6DY2VBVICYPUG4N372KY3EVBNHHB72WFIM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294/564746410@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make transport parameter ID and length varint (#3294)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df1630deada5_4c273fc3664cd95c656b0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/AOCT17uP29NW1lxeNB533vZevdw>
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: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:43:46 -0000

I'd like to be clear about one thing: the proposed change is _not_ about extensibility, this is a cosmetic change. I get that it might be "nicer" to some to have this be more uniform with the rest of QUIC. But I'm not hearing more arguments about the space being too constraining. 

This change is not debilitating to anyone, and I expect that we'll all be able to live with either decision. I'm not keen about cosmetic changes at this point. As @kazuho noted, several of us said in late 2018 that it was too late to make this change because it was too late then. It's even later now. 

I don't think this is important enough to change the handshake yet again at this late stage.

-- 
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/3294#issuecomment-564746410

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email