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

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

I have a few open questions and comments about this before we resolve it.

1) What are we trying to avoid overlapping with?  My previous understanding was that we only cared about STUN, since we could deal with the others overlapping.  Also, doesn't STUN have some large magic cookie to make it easy to identify when multiplexing?
2) Particularly given the cookie, why is Martin's heuristic solution in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-avtcore-quic-multiplexing-01#section-2.3 insufficient?
3) Why do we need to flip the connection id bit to be omit connection id?  That removes flexibility for implementations supporting both elsewhere and might make greasing harder.
4) If we need two bits for spin bits or spin+loss(or just reserving them), as is being discussed, we can't put two adjacent bits anywhere and still use the nonce bit to distinguish IETF QUIC from GQUIC, because it will no longer always be 1, hence question 3.  I suspect this might make @britram  and others a bit unhappy?

-- 
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-347989914