Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC packets with no payload are acceptable (#1745)
Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com> Tue, 18 September 2018 16:32 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AA3130F2D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wx12o29xb6oR for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C70FD130E70 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; 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; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba4db3687a70618b436d0b1f8f4f23a618b9acb9392cf0000000117b8eaac92a169ce157b79fc@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1745/422460785@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1745@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1745@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/pERMpxLDP56IcXApkffdlPpubWI>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=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: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1745#issuecomment-422460785
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC packets… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… Nick Banks
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… Ryan Hamilton
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… Ryan Hamilton
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify whether QUIC pac… Igor Lubashev