Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] First byte changes (#2006)

[Igor Lubashev <[e-mail]>]

igorlord commented on this pull request.



>  
-: The fourth bit (0x10) of byte 0 is set to 1.
+: The next two bits (those with a mask of 0x18) of byte 0 are reserved.  These
+  bits are protected using header protection (see Section 5.4 of
+  {{QUIC-TLS}}).  The value included prior to protection MUST be set to 0.  An

@kazuho
> > An endpoint can already disclose any and all info to anyone without peer's consent, and these bits are by far not the most convenient mechanism for such disclosures.
> 
> If that is the case, why do we need to care about the bits? If the endpoints have an easier way to expose the information, can't they just be randomized using header protection?

An endpoint _deliberately_ trying to compromise the connection's privacy can do it easily (and will likely use a more structured info channel for that purpose). However, an endpoint that is _not_ trying to leak information and is just tagging packets for VEC or Loss detection or other operational purpose would find these bits a lot more convenient.  That said, I understand the concern about some inadvertent disclosure by a poorly designed experiment (if this is the concern).

-- 
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/2006#discussion_r234819486