Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Optional packet length field in the short header? (#1831)

MikkelFJ <> Thu, 04 October 2018 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8B8130DE8 for <>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 23:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HWnx4gSj2jy0 for <>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 23:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3599130DE7 for <>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 23:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 23:30:30 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1538634630; bh=C3JiltE2Ys54Z34kb/w/tXIneKJkoWdW5/4jQWpxYFo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ELFfnyZ4n8L991dsVkZJbQj2eLAi0QV79TaSZOUo2QjoTY/f5rg4DQr92rS7z47x6 detqhz62iWFXKIrzQplx0zKM4Dw43SIqPwAJ1xGZ3Rt0J9NQxXY/f4zlV6r2lyP80J 0K1CMuyureMvQzHYZL2ehexoZt0+xZds/j4dBEs0=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1831/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Optional packet length field in the short header? (#1831)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bb5b386b4235_8063fe60f2d45bc1139fb"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 06:30:33 -0000

If you do that, you should also consider it in the context of transports other than UDP. I.e. ensure that the context ID (there, I said it, it is not a connection ID) is sufficient over header less transports such as a RS232 bus.

As to coalescing just for the sake of coalescing, I think it will just complicate things. As soon as you have short headers, you can do all sorts of optimizations with packet delivery and processing, but if you must also deal with coalescing at this level, it complicates things, so there need to be a good reason for that.

I'm not sure why coalescing would be useful for its own sake, over a UDP transport.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: