Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Confused about Fixed Bit in Version Negotiation Packet (#2995)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 07:44 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 D30FA12022A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: 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 SLiygzbC8c6P for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07E541201EA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:44:34 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1568360674; bh=jDcK3GvDgHxXx2uaXjNv/RzlVxZ/WTwyzfk2NJYnf0g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=n54TfSAS8p3h6qN4Id0FxS1CtitIzff7+TSFkUQLjw9L6AHhB14/cqZ18wlCpO7HC 9N4C7G/X//gptgEbF6s93FiHsy464OO4bGDIBvkuJLRB0afn7SODk+D8V2sJcChqck pnpCMuoHmMqnV6fOJYHAGNIdKNwNDijpy8KijkyM=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZSV7OJVTGIX5T2BDV3RBWVFEVBNHHBZ6ZBM4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2995/531135802@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2995@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2995@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Confused about Fixed Bit in Version Negotiation Packet (#2995)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d7b48e226697_4dcb3fd7232cd960155096"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/WYmm7eYsuYSgAEnWxSDgIQfT5wE>
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:44:37 -0000

>  If Client must ignore the value(including Fixed Bit), why server should set Fixed Bit?

Because this might allow us - in future - to depend on that behaviour.  We might assign semantics to a non-zero value.  A client that doesn't understand that bit will continue to consume the packet and ignore the semantic difference.  If servers set the value any way they please, then we can't.  (It's a SHOULD, so we won't be able to rely on it exclusively, but we might still be able to do something with it.  That said, I consider it a write-off, but this is a general protocol design hygiene matter.)

My proposal for this issue is to do nothing.  This is a little complex, but I don't think that the required behaviour is unclear in any way.

-- 
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/2995#issuecomment-531135802