Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] A fixed transport parameter profile is legitimate (#3429)

Nick Harper <> Thu, 06 February 2020 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D50120129 for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:34:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N6XCVCojEQrg for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BFAE12009C for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 03:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 03:34:31 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580988871; bh=5zYk1c1sADj02Yx4VVRGwlW/za3HF62pUBdd6r/zWs8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gV+TRSwIRYhGK+GYrew66whp9GCkZwUcaj6cgeZyktzWtvU7O1S8tdFx7x0sprgC5 QrEgfyM7bu712mIHZhJ7/JqRVe9q5ef0ofWoNBI7BeN9/Z/5aKgT39ZYstgUjtCKRo 38CWgg2qUiHy3atSJ76JxHlFFNMBX4j3fr5yyT44=
From: Nick Harper <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3429/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] A fixed transport parameter profile is legitimate (#3429)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3bf9c7b46d2_7d13fdc178cd95c14061f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nharper
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, 06 Feb 2020 11:34:35 -0000

My understanding of the argument is that we shouldn't force servers to condition their TPs based on the client's Initial packet (possibly including TPs). E.g. the server currently needs to condition its active_connection_id_limit TP based on whether the client's Initial had a zero-len SCID; PR #3426 relaxes that constraint.

Assuming we have some future sets of TPs for extensions (and these TPs are advertised values, not negotiated values) E_c on the client and E_s on the server: The server could always send E_s (so it doesn't have to condition its response), or the server could send E_c \cap E_s, and in either case the client will ignore values sent by the server not in E_c. For future extensions that have negotiated transport params, the server will have to condition those values based on what the client sent.

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