IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need two ways to represent Base Index? (#2002)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 14 November 2018 13:53 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 1BAB5130E6D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:53:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, 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_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 VQWnphx0YOeF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B78D12D4EF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:53:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1542203584; bh=Tpu0mt+IQKV4pNSIUanM+wmCMbDQtPdwWzRPM9fqUwg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qJ/aq/tWDaEf6jZpFnbAYbi0xnlWs/KYxCZ8ufdnJ4ZdMjoiyH7WsNEQhN8gDEdNH 4ZFFMrIWJX9btpIhhZJkTYki9CRkhUyMjMoeDzgKOAGTbJQ61ID0Gy4oCYHzq887tl qQj+SBsAImIFc6/tVLqDRaexmeB37Y/59N8qIVUg=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abcb31461ad7591717db1084103e84b1ac36ab480d92cf000000011803eac092a169ce16afb802@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2002/438668861@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2002@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2002@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need two ways to represent Base Index? (#2002)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bec28c07414b_731f3fe398cd45b825063c"; 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/aBR4pw-XUnAaLe2xO7PWJcJNBV8>
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, 14 Nov 2018 13:53:07 -0000

@dtikhonov 
>> At the moment, there are two ways to Base Index identical to Largest Reference: use (S, Delta Base Index) = (1, 0) or (0, 0).
> 
> This is not true. The draft states:
> 
>> A sign bit set to 1 when the Delta Base Index is 0 MUST be treated as a decoder error.

Oh thank you for pointing that out. I missed that.

Though I still think that we have an inconsistency in the design. As pointed out, post-base indexing in the request and push streams do not call index of zero to be an error. Instead, they adjust the offset so that a post-base index of zero do not overlap with a non-post-base index with zero. Should we follow the pattern for the delta base index as well?

-- 
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/2002#issuecomment-438668861

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email