Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC header format/demultiplexing (#426)

[janaiyengar <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your draft on muxing principles -- I think that should have been part of the discussion here prior to committing #956.

I agree that we don't need to design for things that haven't been agreed upon yet (spin bit, greasing), but it's a conversation that may (yet again) have us changing packet types. I don't see harm in anticipating it, but I agree that we shouldn't hold up progress in anticipation of uncertain issues.

That said, AFAICT, we have not agreed on creating a scheme that muxes QUIC with everything in RFC 7983. From the interim, I took away that STUN was probably important, but we didn't care much about the rest of the protocols. That was what I heard @csperkins ask for, and it is what I agreed with -- that maybe we should allow muxing with STUN for now, and I had argued that we leave the rest out. I'm still of that opinion. Practically, if we're only muxing with STUN, we could use a different solution space altogether (basically reserve those 4 types and we're done), but we seem to be trying to accomodate all protocols in 7983. I'd like to see agreement on that.

And if we're only doing STUN, then I've missed the discussion on inefficiencies in using the STUN cookie -- it's not on this bug, where is that discussion?

-- 
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/426#issuecomment-348106690