IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet numbers and sequence numbers are too easily confused (#3725)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 04 June 2020 23:41 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 E08D53A1077 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 belXrwIjgzLx for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EAAF3A1079 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.55]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF9AA0118 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1591314105; bh=oC1YSB89vH5fjkzea/VMp9xQp39S2xrkvmxKWhuul9I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WxPhszeToUQIjKWyO7NNjjn3DccOlxg62A5LZPwnG1dkpanHBZZG+RLElKc4+M3fc eAWEn2VDm0gvz3km9tQiERusnliKDEbDfj7nqw4b+9rYAzPJsWIF+JTOxicCXIpsT1 4vonay+GLzBmLTvV/nYW6bLgsFGuHSJxHjusdm2k=
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:41:45 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYZD3NVXEEZG6GMKG544VT3TEVBNHHCLHJD4M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3725/639173494@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3725@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3725@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet numbers and sequence numbers are too easily confused (#3725)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ed986b9cbb7f_24033fc5c06cd96c7117b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/O8iqUFOVqYBkFh3l_ORt_xyF1OA>
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 23:41:49 -0000

> Sequence numbers for connection IDs. I'm not inclined to change these. Using index/indices would be fine, but the risk involved in making a change isn't worth it in my opinion. As this is sufficiently distinct from the TCP usage, I see no real risk of confusion either.

+1. I agree that they are sufficiently distinct.

Also, I do not think we'd want to go down the path of changing the terms that are used in TCP to something else. To give an example, "FIN" in QUIC is different than that in TCP. Do we need to look for such cases and change all the names? I think making such changes could cause more confusion.

-- 
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/3725#issuecomment-639173494

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email