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

[janaiyengar <[e-mail]>]

@csperkins: Agreed that #956 changes packet type syntax only, and it solves the problem of avoiding any collision with the space in RFC 7983. But as @ianswett points out, we want to do greasing, which might introduce semantics into this space. From where I see it, we can't be done sorting out packet types until two things are resolved: which collisions to avoid, and how, if possible, to do greasing.

@martinthomson: I agree that we don't have any reserved packet types, and so we are free to change them across versions. My note earlier was about *this* version of QUIC -- QUIC v1, or more precisely, draft -08. The packet types chosen in #956 have a very specific end-goal -- to avoid a collision with 7983. Given that, only one of two things is true: either QUICv1 packet types avoid a collision with 7983, in which case we are setting those types aside as not usable (what I termed "reserved") for QUIC v1; or QUICv1 packet types don't avoid a collision with 7983, in which case #956 is entirely cosmetic. Which of these is reflected in the packet type choices in draft -08?


-- 
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-349805614