Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Mandatory distinction between token types (#3128)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

kazuho commented on this pull request.

> Question for reviewers: do you think it necessary to point out that this distinction doesn't need to be hidden from other entities?

Yes, I think doing so would help people understand the text. At the moment, in [section 8.1.1](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#rfc.section.8.1.1) we merely imply that a Retry token can be in cleartext. It is easy to miss that the bit used for the distinction can be in clear.

> @@ -1675,9 +1675,10 @@ one.  The client MUST NOT use the token provided in a Retry for future
 connections. Servers MAY discard any Initial packet that does not carry the
 expected token.
 
-A token SHOULD be constructed in a way that allows the server to distinguish it
-from tokens that are sent in Retry packets as they are carried in the same
-field.
+A token send in NEW_TOKEN frames MUST be constructed in a way that allows the

s/A token send/A token being sent/?

-- 
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/pull/3128#pullrequestreview-304946898