Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reserve Long Header Packet Type for QUIC-LB (#1980)

[janaiyengar <[e-mail]>]

Reserving a codepoint would be putting the horse before the cart. Let's
first get the QUIC-LB draft to a point where it is a wg activity, then
discuss the designs in there, and agree on a need for a packet-type in the
wg. I don't think it makes sense to reserve a codepoint before we've agreed
on the mechanisms in the draft first.

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 8:13 AM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I think that we probably want to have a deeper conversation about this
> draft. I look at it and ask why you need to create a bespoke protocol here
> at all. If it is going to look like QUIC proper, why not make it be QUIC
> proper?
>
> But even assuming that you do need that, why are you concerned about
> making this look like QUIC proper? I can't see why you would need that for
> routing purposes, because it seems like you should be back to 5-tuples for
> routing on this bit. I can't see why you would concern yourself with
> ossification on a link that you presumably have considerable influence
> over. I can see why you might want to disambiguate this connection from
> "real" connections, but you could use a separate port, ALPN, or even a new
> QUIC version if it came to that (though I would advise against a version).
>
> On response to @marten-seemann <https://github.com/marten-seemann>'s
> comment, which I agree with, you might also like to consider the effect of
> having 5 types in the long header and what that does for protocol
> ossification.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1980#issuecomment-437724235>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKjg1LcqhgGp84gRP6L8Rf5GRvLZPx1Cks5uuMtVgaJpZM4YSmjs>
> .
>


-- 
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/1980#issuecomment-437846835