[quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit description is unclear about whose connection ID might be zero length (#3427)

Nick Harper <notifications@github.com> Wed, 05 February 2020 15:52 UTC

Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:52:17 -0800
From: Nick Harper <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3JN3L25QKEA73ZEZV4JALTDEVBNHHCCZ7ZBM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3427@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit description is unclear about whose connection ID might be zero length (#3427)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3ae4b14573f_49db3fc78a2cd96825163"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/I9GfEbDA1VCRREln6ahqG7mMiiI>

The current language defining the active_connection_id_limit transport parameter refers to "a zero-length connection ID is being used". It's unclear whether the zero-length CID is the CID of the sender of the TP or the receiver of the TP. Since this TP limits how many CIDs the peer can send, the references to using a zero-length CID only make sense if it's the peer using a zero-length CID, but it would be useful to clean up that language.

I've created PR #3426 to clarify this language, including that checking whether the peer is using a zero-length CID can only be done by the server.

-- 
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/3427

[quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_limit d… Nick Harper
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_lim… Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] active_connection_id_lim… Martin Thomson