Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC packets with no payload are acceptable (#1745)

Igor Lubashev <> Tue, 18 September 2018 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AA3130F2D for <>; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 wx12o29xb6oR for <>; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C70FD130E70 for <>; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:32:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1537288365; bh=3k5HdU1ZEpitEtAfyzYP1N7ArS7hWg3KSoaEg9HABKw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Q9nvSs1axpB4+KVaFNmk1sHBlC8xP69ypamw6xtWjgANCw3B9aE4MrjO3UlUSCvrK AizwOIueTglT1txhif1Ey990gzmXipBz2JRw7YYN+ax6AUncPP4OfRmz8XMc9camkP tw9DMxrPfTyeLX3oKY6gY0GTEOR0gF9odIGnGOgU=
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1745/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC packets with no payload are acceptable (#1745)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ba128acf3544_3e313fa4c32d45b89796b2"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:32:59 -0000

An empty long-header packet would be a natural choice for coalescing with a non-empty short-header packet.  Would we want to therefore call it a valid packet?  Or still call it invalid and let the language of "4.9. Coalescing Packets" take care of this case:

> If one or more packets in
>    a datagram cannot be processed yet [..] or processing fails (decryption failure, unknown type,
>    etc.), the receiver MUST still attempt to process the remaining
>    packets.  The skipped packets MAY either be discarded or buffered for
>    later processing [..].

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