IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make transport parameter ID and length varint (#3294)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 05:21 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 6942D1200FD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:21:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 dSz869tRCKKH for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:21:22 -0800 (PST)
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 2D90312002F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-6b40fdd.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-6b40fdd.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.64]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B21E660033 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:21:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576041681; bh=aCiH80yeXI/T+zBFeUljhqRmdDv1/+J19nsl2oBXpMU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LIZidVBWXNVCsMe+eQTNBgBle1lSQyDpXFwvatSpciSEP3m0VldYsYyoT0rCtwTsO S3eq0IpcNuA8Zn2nj3KwRyw/2sRrUJheETc8DDl8Q5wzHaTAHxgOb4L/lvGUkjzGAk nluAvnE1jhYdp0TazyF2KdIJBaen6NGkMbDiNRKM=
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:21:21 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK536Q4HI6ESE3HMOJN37WXVDEVBNHHB72WFIM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294/564384731@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3294@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make transport parameter ID and length varint (#3294)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df07cd17b141_6723f8bca0cd95c98543"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/XP39Q5DgLV0XYyJIzqDnnY94vMw>
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: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:21:23 -0000

@marten-seemann 
> I cannot see any reason for using this model than being able to use TLS presentation language. Which we removed in #3108.

I do not think that is a fair argument. As I have stated in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3169#issuecomment-561438777, it is my understanding that we agreed on *only switching to a QUIC-based notation, while preserving the uint16 encoding*, which coincides with what #3020 states.

I can see that we disagree on that. If that is the case, maybe we should start by first going back to the TLS notation?

-- 
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/3294#issuecomment-564384731

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email