Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 10 March 2017 02:32 UTC
Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 25B4E12943B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 18:32:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 I9fg8K3thZ8b for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 18:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o4.sgmail.github.com (o4.sgmail.github.com [192.254.112.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3151A12940E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 18:32:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=VDtSOZrpkMgLjFM3ECNh5xbqfQw=; b=h7TAL1QoYrFd76jr awQQwzBsVJs48yvhIyjfxt3Q7+BT5BPq68Npp2LSR7owakmzqtwVM2USGj4POVLk m0QvyUsUn9o+bP4eu+Da6dxiaRTO52AgfRCHqeQ1VqpRXVpOBnZ3lUMxBoKigkSI qa15ehgDTa1+O2eurDiseEJT6LI=
Received: by filter0442p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0442p1mdw1-14194-58C201A7-2 2017-03-10 01:30:15.033741358 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0005p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id 9Pb74UzFQ92Kz5z6xvpxeA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 01:30:14.971 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:30:14 -0800
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383/285545990@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58c201a6d9ccf_c903f8665bcdc2c432e5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2PVytkVzjh5LcbvfTNVVT4qsu84MijSkHZEh BIxmNqJ2M8ea/cjiEnq+KAv0par1lO+F/+EMpm76uzKKpFrOpZrbxNFNTRvn4FQH8s/rYGzIsbCJ7T xsuusKCLGtZn0MEWUQn0CmNEW1xWyjEQPWsoEaPVJro+2+OMRsF7gRQdBszLp71EKZ97y2BoOM7D/z c=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/D61rEx89IG_bX-RKUDAIJjliDp8>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 02:32:53 -0000
I would propose we remove this error code, unless there's some compelling reason for it to exist. GQUIC doesn't even use it anymore in practice, though there is some possibility of packets that are too large being dropped in the current implementation. -- 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/383#issuecomment-285545990
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maxim… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson