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

[John Ericson <[e-mail]>]

@LPardue @MikeBishop So, going the basic thrust of both your comments so far, We'd end up with fewer constraints on the underlying protocol (e.g. need not be message-origin) and a good bit of information being conditioned on UDP only (ECN, MTU discovery and associated limits and restrictions, etc.). I see very different conclusions one might make based on that, such as:

1. Negative: Meaningfully generalizing QUIC is too difficult because so much is UDP specific, and we'd need to make sure the remainder stands on its own.

2. Neutral: Fine to just continue conditioning sections on being UDP-specific, and just leave fleshing out the remainder for other transports as a future exercise.

3. Positive: It's great there are so many UDP-specific details we can cut away. It would be good to reorder or even split the document to make UDP-specific vs UDP-agnostic a prominent axis around which the standard is organized.

I think before I put too much more work with it, would be good to confirm whether you agree with this analysis, and if so, which outlook you both take. Most of the broad feedback is still negative, so I don't want to just stir emotions while beating a dead horse.

-- 
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-683226997