Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Wrongly hinting of issues not existing for packet number size increase (#605)

[MikkelFJ <[e-mail]>]

>  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Or may be the opposite - I thought you would introduce a gap in the packet number space while advancing the larger range, but that no longer makes sense to me.

Either way, I'm  not sure there is a problem:

If you send 100 packets in 8-bit encoding, then decide to send 100000 packets more, you encode 8 bit until packet 127, use 16 bit until packet 32767, and 32 bit after that.

Regardless of delivery order, there shouldn't be any ambiguity about the packer number.

But this isn't exactly how things are specified currently - it uses a diff against largest received or something like that.

If the spec would state that only half the representable range must be used for any given encoding, except for 64 bit, then I think it should be working.

Simpler yet, use varlen.



-- 
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/605#issuecomment-309741686