IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remember Fewer Transport Parameters for 0-RTT (#2464)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Tue, 23 April 2019 20:22 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 E15F6120369 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_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 GQ8xph6v1VyP for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 605B0120344 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:22:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1556050942; bh=qTCYzBvfxTWKyUjIdhQM33CNPDvP5XZQRYGtDdE71YI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jAemA5Ks3mnIowmsPaoHN09I6zku6QAvWbp8U1+bgS47AmlxhKt5MCGCt82nds1ZD q8QNciDTT+dHukvAd4pi4KKrKXu3N1ne/FYXIzKlQqdqP+lni7ZsApRCel4KCl7U8g CngQobrmsTw/VlXoL8kyo+saUBrkf0Hv8in9LA/I=
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK65VQELRHAJV247GTV2ZSTH5EVBNHHBQ5WSC4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2464/485959725@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2464@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2464@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remember Fewer Transport Parameters for 0-RTT (#2464)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cbf73fe590bd_1ac83faa6b8cd96c146563"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/cx55we3C3hbuA1xY96SzoxU6_g0>
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: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 20:22:26 -0000

For context, the PR was marked editorial but the issue it auto-closed was marked design.  Comment from the PR discussion:

> Thanks for doing this Martin. I will raise this on the list so that people are clear about this. Technically, there isn't a change here, but it certainly looks like it if you don't understand what is going on.

The PR changes the text from "MUST remember everything" to "MUST NOT remember the things that don't make sense to remember and you weren't actually remembering anyway, but MUST remember everything else".  That is, there's no functional change to real implementations, but the normative requirements in the text didn't match what was actually possible to implement.  Martin's right -- this is really an editorial change, despite touching normative text.

-- 
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/2464#issuecomment-485959725

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email