[quicwg/base-drafts] Invarinats in TP (#1672)

mirjak <notifications@github.com> Thu, 16 August 2018 16:40 UTC

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:40:40 -0700
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab6e5df7a4e2941d7c56a04087d3c579cce85f2f0792cf00000001178d6b0892a169ce14f02818@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1672@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invarinats in TP (#1672)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b75a90868b3d_1d1c3fcc9d0d45b820911ab"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/wFOVomCwibd_I8bXzn96Mbg26oc>

The transport draft says:
"When an endpoint accepts multiple QUIC versions, it can potentially
   interpret transport parameters as they are defined by any of the QUIC
   versions it supports.  The version field in the QUIC packet header is
   authenticated using transport parameters.  The position and the
   format of the version fields in transport parameters MUST either be
   identical across different QUIC versions, or be unambiguously
   different to ensure no confusion about their interpretation.  One way
   that a new format could be introduced is to define a TLS extension
   with a different codepoint."
It seems that this actually belongs in the invariants draft.

-- 
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/1672

[quicwg/base-drafts] Invarinats in TP (#1672) mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invarinats in TP (#1672) Mike Bishop
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invariants in Transport … Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Invariants in Transport … Martin Thomson