Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56)
ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sat, 03 December 2016 20:36 UTC
Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 77A19126BF7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:36:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, 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 hcwX_Az6bUL1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o10.sgmail.github.com (o10.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EE2B120727 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:36:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=yGYP2co2qHIfvM8UYdWEvUzOxAQ=; b=LdYWYi6hXaYpHSew yQK3mZtvOLB9xk8gY6bYp2t/hAFZcKjeGAs7Fd/qpF3nOFRMFmrtQGgFTdkw5Q59 uFP+wJoybR2DHkZxWEdc6gBEKcsKsVSSIAOLA8p+o5fw1DTU3lfG0MrU6Q7JsL/l j2Js5e7/OB+nMp4gvw8ZQQsFlqs=
Received: by filter0593p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0593p1mdw1-25580-58432CCB-2E 2016-12-03 20:36:27.986154884 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.16]) by ismtpd0002p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id NHH8Eps8Ts2XMk-9qff0uA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 20:36:28.000 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:36:27 -0800
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/56/264663855@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/56@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/56@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58432ccbde688_6e0e3fa5183331306664c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak1d2rHsfzlqhWdGpB8PodkFccmFXjegEaNIu5 vORtJ6Rb8nPciYUu9yOVXCPRHUE1tfOHVh4VuWVq79NoWQNmwo+PD+PUzGcuaoWr9a2xEp0mqXCJlD Q1bgwJXUQNha9PYRWKb9NDbqgsDQV5IkpXotr6q1U7fls0BARiPR93IBl2ffdfMryAIyl55OLtgDqh 8=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/dO9dvLAG_9odLNbdXXd4wyNIrwU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab9ab1a28d5c8d160eabcb19b9da818f325364790992cf00000001145aeecb92a169ce0b80ca4a@reply.github.com>
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: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 20:36:31 -0000
I agree with Alexis the obvious approach is to use 0x80 to indicate another byte of flags. If we think extended flags will be common, I think we should change to 2 bytes as a minimum, because variable length fields before the connection id are more annoying to process in some systems(ie: BPFs), particularly if the number of times one can add more flags is unbounded.(ie: IPv6 extension headers). I would lean towards suggesting that extended flags should come after the connection id. -- 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/56#issuecomment-264663855
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56) Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56) Alexis La Goutte
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56) ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56) martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56) martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56) Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56) Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56) Mike Bishop