Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform should be negotiated (#1296)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 29 May 2018 04:31 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 8733112E8D1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 May 2018 21:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 uG-nJWujPl7U for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 May 2018 21:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E4D12E8B1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 May 2018 21:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 21:31:12 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1527568272; bh=0TTjSVp4Wqvc0kQtDdb+HHNwQJ/+7MluweNWxSYoqe0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=xgOYZLGSLuIcClq910LdRYC5UIuumQ9tP90i4QbM2mZdxAAy09z8LGkbcN0p8bNTA DMZWB0Pv8EmmgkMv6Y0h3HhzsH+nVYmeV/zqKyhIIRZK/dCKh4Mu4rKOzhPmYYBBjz wQCMf6wfr028B3qGwpufcMMcNPaQuBqfJ4go7NM4=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab3ee4e6db7f46a65bc6b759e64ed4026864be601a92cf000000011724999092a169ce12c973b1@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1296/392649883@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1296@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1296@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number transform should be negotiated (#1296)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b0cd790dfeba_3f6c2ad3022e2f5c24926b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/Gju9_yENZCk-G2vGm8Kp9B1LBpc>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 29 May 2018 04:31:16 -0000

Just to try to close on this, the transformation is negotiated, along with the version number.  That's the ultimate solution here.

But that's not the ask here, from what I can tell.  This appears to be asking whether the feature could be made optional, and at the discretion of the server.

@pravb, if you think that we need to resolve this issue, I'd suggest that you ask for some time on the agenda in Kista.

-- 
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/1296#issuecomment-392649883