Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC header format/demultiplexing (#426)

Colin Perkins <notifications@github.com> Thu, 07 December 2017 12:53 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 9FAB7124D6C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:53:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 dA9NLxwfCcKY for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext2.iad.github.net [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8D9C129353 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:53:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 04:53:49 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1512651229; bh=8PZdq3vPc8+lRmrHUQGUzXvokNhKqoq8k6cvzrX8OAA=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gvquFTyZrHJ0otrXxgE9jiG8lxUHLDFOY99ostS5mUXcFyDMX53YYR2krf9h5XLuU uj7vmuUl8Gikd4e05o13nAHbWWH7NRsdFfzhkURHYzgpTfplWCkjec4lp8ySu8kTXP K8rQNHZ5BnGtLHBrK3zeFGJpZAfjMZi+ObiES7hU=
From: Colin Perkins <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba99a0c088c5510acde4c6653fa029d6cf5d8b78592cf000000011640fbdd92a169ce0d018204@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/426/349958649@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/426@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/426@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC header format/demultiplexing (#426)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5a2939dd9ae7_78803fba25044f383544812"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: csperkins
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/R92t2BVhL71m1GmKgdhOPXEU4tY>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 07 Dec 2017 12:53:52 -0000

@marten-seemann no, it doesn't assume that. In short header packets C = 1 to mean connection ID is omitted avoids collisions with STUN. If the Connection ID is present, then C = 0 which makes the first two bits of the packet match those of STUN packets, but if we change the legal values of Connection ID as in my previous we still avoid collisions with STUN when the Connection ID is present. No STUN FINGERPRINT needed in either case.

-- 
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/426#issuecomment-349958649