Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Generalizing QUIC to allow underlying tranports other than UDP (#4061)

[John Ericson <[e-mail]>]

I am a bit confused by the association with concreteness with legibility. To me, this sounds like saying "I prefer to read assembly than C because it's more concrete w.r.t. the machine code". A higher-level description to me better conveys concepts like purpose behind a mechnaism, which cannot in-general be recovered easily from the low-level description, and furthermore no low-level details are actually being removed (It's like C with an appending containing the disassembly, to continue my earlier analogy).

I do understand that a standard can be revised, and so only talking about UDP now doesn't prevent talking about other underlying transports later once they are tried out. But just that there is a risk of specifying the details of other transports without experience, there is the risk of ending up with a "non-portable" protocol that is much more tightly bound to UDP than intended. That can also be a difficult situation to recover from.

-- 
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/4061#issuecomment-683224746