Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make transport parameter ID and length varint (#3294)
From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <[email-masked]>
Cc: Subscribed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:01:48 -0800
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>

> We deliberately decided to mix crypto handshake and transport negotiation in QUIC. TP is a cross-layer thing that is exchanged during the TLS handshake.

I'm ambivalent about this assertion.  When we had a section on requirements for crypto handshake protocols, one of the requirements was to carry and authenticate the provided opaque blob.  Using a TLS extension was then the TLS incarnation of that requirement.

Since then, we've decided this version is TLS-only and future versions can figure things out for themselves. From that choice, we've opted to integrate packet types and encryption with the TLS record layer and key schedule for this version.  I don't agree that this is an area we've deliberately decided to mix layers, but I do agree that we could reasonably make that choice.  Clearly your implementation has, regardless, and I don't see that as a bad choice.

-- 
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-565094294