Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unclear how short header packets should be matched to connections (#3006)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 04 September 2019 23:36 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 220FA120044 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 fr45jJbj24nb for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81064120147 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 16:36:33 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1567640193; bh=TxEEV2aOhRVo3grggxZHaxXbX2nS8QznO95juyuwSy8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CFdN2XCrXmHCl3RaGYyDKWxNSDra+9vY0ZSEb1SPjEvLacJqh0n9uLN+/HedI6F1a 6cuM48TAnOQMRFRaeDk2rjzsvLBeaYUhpk8P3C4KOFUHHnR/EooSPRK3Zkrq7c4yxm t/iSKIAAvqdmCxknIech75fUu758YDh7Wz5z8n6I=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYSPWAOK36QGNIZJXN3PVXPDEVBNHHB2LDIAM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3006/528132545@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3006@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3006@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unclear how short header packets should be matched to connections (#3006)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d704a8173055_119a3f9bd5acd964128987"; 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/LCiRfzmN2cDo6fDSepvaqU2l78I>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 23:36:37 -0000

@mikkelfj has it about right, though I would point out two things: you choose how long the connection ID is based on your understanding of requirements.  Zero-length is basically only for when you have a unique address for the connection at your end.

The other is that this is not the best place to ask questions.  Try our [mailing list](mailto:quic@ietf.org).

-- 
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/3006#issuecomment-528132545