IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] WIP: Begin lightly abstracting over the use of UDP as the underlying transport (#4043)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Fri, 28 August 2020 21:03 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 B9B873A0B5B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3HFf8MEjxT4y for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86BD23A0C33 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f144ac1.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f144ac1.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AB9840A5B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598648635; bh=Hz0fxhg+mSAIaimYwD9H0f4G2qA2fhYMcDfiib+v5Jk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hHS34rkuO3hslKS5N7A0J306RHEV1mkr0AKPeiPMizee77o0bVlh4V9talzr7hIKV tFjnqQZDJMqz4MXhR6wmKGfBWo4KzO+OW5yXDqaFHTxlG0sPZbo1k6S3xcDEU8CvAd o4ktU++v1yrNa9ba8nWwm2rZlvLAWRth8nw4FKFI=
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:03:55 -0700
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK37V4HIUYQQ64UMBB55KVJDXEVBNHHCROOLIU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4043/c683145496@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4043@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4043@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] WIP: Begin lightly abstracting over the use of UDP as the underlying transport (#4043)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f49713b83f74_69491964252037"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/yzLzlksaR-bWZ1tTQnCYbw3QapA>
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: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:03:58 -0000

I think that this PR makes the spec harder to read, with no obvious benefit. If someone wants to standardize QUIC over another medium, they'll have to write some sort of document for that, and simply saying "replace UDP with X" in that document should be good enough. I'd strongly prefer we didn't make the spec more generic at the cost of readability.

-- 
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/4043#issuecomment-683145496

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email