Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify zero-length CIDs and active_connection_id_limit TP (#3426)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson requested changes on this pull request.

I think that I have larger concerns than this addresses. The special case for the server only highlighted that.   

>    active_connection_id_limit parameter MUST be no less than 2. If this
-  transport parameter is absent, a default of 2 is assumed.
-  When a zero-length connection ID is being used, the active_connection_id_limit
-  parameter MUST NOT be sent.
+  transport parameter is absent, a default of 2 is assumed.  When the client
+  is using a zero-length connection ID, the server MUST NOT send the
+  active_connection_id_limit parameter.

I would say here that the server MAY omit the parameter.  Sending a fixed set of transport parameters is a good practice. 

> @@ -4697,11 +4697,11 @@ active_connection_id_limit (0x000e):
   to store. This value includes the connection ID received during the handshake,
   that received in the preferred_address transport parameter, and those received
   in NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames.
-  Unless a zero-length connection ID is being used, the value of the
+  Unless the peer is using a zero-length connection ID, the value of the

I would instead prefer to say that the value is assumed to be zero if the peer requests that a zero length CID be used.

-- 
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/pull/3426#pullrequestreview-353867016