Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Usage of "epoch" term (#2566)

Martin Thomson <> Fri, 29 March 2019 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F63D12027A for <>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 K2DCvF3gSGYq for <>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D58512002F for <>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=HbtyS0B60ruXgGQ3BQrYBL1iLHQ=; b=NmrXJcqc+qPtCEuK T0evUBOnAcZ67HZODBoH39SUDWNjcXG96nYOVMQNUdIrj49ajrEcFOzNYQD0VOAg /24dIGmmSzWMX0apkz8xwz/pL2z9REdCMIR9tp7hlbVOpHlMf60MG9OLU49cPQj5 PqdJV+lr43L/uDEqn5uvGgnhh3s=
Received: by with SMTP id filter1721p1mdw1-11157-5C9E6E52-29 2019-03-29 19:13:22.987866144 +0000 UTC m=+130507.324346120
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id ltmxpRJKTg2drFj7yd2MqQ for <>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:13:23.065 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49161600AD for <>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:13:23 +0000
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2566/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Usage of "epoch" term (#2566)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9e6e52e2f70_32743ff2c8ed45b8755ce"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3A3L6/IQjmFNQNX6Vh2bj2qZXOlSOLxSARUs nenw6lMlq8sWGy9wQJ6hOrunEEEL2OR49B5NvN8QvWXgaAV1qsc+w4SLUseSK6f7ZSFL6UNpQ8IKYS w33bPF+jrJSHcBVv2L//PypOFHMWXq4Iqr05oWrVfyMHtutkH5+JsLh3zs4o/BfXgkukWNW/yvno+m w=
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:13:27 -0000

Hopefully there is no mention of epoch in TLS or transport. Though we use the concept in discussion as a shorthand and to help reason through the complicated key update cases we were discussing, taking the meaning from DTLS, QUIC currently doesn't have that concept. And it probably won't have to grow that concept either. 

Should this issue be used to track the lack of definition of those terms in the recovery draft?

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