Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extending flags (#56)
martinduke <notifications@github.com> Tue, 06 December 2016 01:02 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 4CEE012965A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 17:02:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.915
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.915 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-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 DR-_m0pLUXy2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 17:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o11.sgmail.github.com (o11.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.202]) (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 54BB31295C1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 17:02:22 -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=rKuJrm9R67QMcF/ooLBiJx7NqMA=; b=GwQq0h6gAecvrYC4 Yve3fqpNFMOZl2if0MXX41syo+A0OsJk2Gs4withmmid7RaoX84t5k8r5t99NB/A RtDVtkMA+ZDLMITnWUwxl6Q4XPVwOWp/3/KsRyrMm4lXP3980fw7GypVYba4zrLl IIzvIYCvevGVeVn4VDHWPAYhS+M=
Received: by filter0994p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0994p1mdw1-19976-58460E15-8 2016-12-06 01:02:13.184302557 +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 ismtpd0006p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id 5gcPcZ39TRKxtXcWOAWw1Q for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Dec 2016 01:02:13.095 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:02:13 -0800
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/56/265029112@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_58460e14f4182_7b123ff078b1f140209468"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3lGWhV++qgvscJTFKwYyyshpVu0ZBtSO8Ocf eTSJ5cw/0AZ5YueJqQeGPDE1XHffmS+3fuE+8aei3j3uQCP0eIRxQOqff4KHDv/tF313Bo8cxbT+3e ixOBAzd47OR3HnXd0tyTZ974o7gDCr7z23T/666+/mPdNTqgwIT+ePsNB9CRQBSUKCCbbH61m54WEj g=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/dd0NYOvpflvKk7xata_t4wWasbk>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abb86bc3246e6305b12ca84790b7e95a5d40c6371592cf00000001145dd01492a169ce0b80ca4a@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: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 01:02:24 -0000
I think a 2-byte field will be annoying in the near to medium-term, where the second byte is unused. Having the second byte after connection ID (and version?) would be annoying in the more distant future when 8+ flags are routine. But in either case, this is a matter of taste and I see no showstoppers with having the extra flags come later. Especially since we might end up having lots of these flags. On the other hand, I can imagine future protocol tweakers "abusing" unlimited public flags to put whole bitfields in there. I'm not sure if this is a "problem" we need to solve or not. -- 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-265029112
- [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