Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] New packet format used before it is defined (#3673)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 21 May 2020 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAAA3A046A for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xcyaV1J5srZ2 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D32673A053E for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C595D660022 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1590086291; bh=nbzh1xusafrlv/8ZuegauEjRVoFgaND796hym5VOpis=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RDNFG2grJ2hQ42nm7fmmf/ejJ0zdll3/7LUtnNFrNs9cari6nBXJJce3A+D+2AqI/ HVDej7pStg3W3AYOBgPEBmBTHg9MORakCM/FXEysePCmaI9/QEObvEEhjyTrq/M2xO iuLLcQT5aPF7JSS0TdE/wl+2k//EJvf/fOPIM8MU=
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 11:38:11 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3673/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] New packet format used before it is defined (#3673)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ec6ca93b6192_11cb3f9f5f0cd9681495a3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 18:38:15 -0000

I agree that the reference is sufficient, except for one aspect:  We do want the invariants drafts to be readable without needing to get into the v1 spec, because the target audience is people who need to handle QUIC without regard to versions.

I think it's wrong that the reference to QUIC-TRANSPORT is normative instead of informative, and this reference for conventions and definitions is the only reference in the doc that actually needs to be normative.  I'm almost be more inclined to move the notation definition across, just as we ultimately did for the definition of VN, and let -transport refer to -invariants for it.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: