Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Normative Text in Invariants (#3773)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

My take on the invariants draft is the same as @martinthomson's: That is really about what future protocol versions of QUIC need to adhere to. I don't think we should be specifying what we are making available to intermediaries. That is merely a side-effect, and I don't think we should be changing the scope of the document.

These bits were not made available so intermediaries could use them. They were made available for the endpoints to pivot around, for the receiver to find the necessary information so that it could decrypt or reject the packet. The bits that are visible to third parties is a consequence, and this consequence is equally useful to intermediaries and sniffing tools.

@martinthomson : FWIW, I think the second paragraph in the proposed text is adequate. The first and third explicitly state things that don't really belong in the invariants draft IMO.

-- 
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/3773#issuecomment-649897966