Question on RFC 9298
Giorgi Gulbani <giorgig777@gmail.com> Wed, 21 August 2024 04:15 UTC
Return-Path: <giorgig777@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFA8C1840CC for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.858
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.858 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AW8b5NXXOQYG for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x112a.google.com (mail-yw1-x112a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07B11C14CE42 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x112a.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6b4432b541aso36763487b3.1 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1724213716; x=1724818516; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LXVJ3zuY4OXAQ6BdiZGykzbneuHiLgk55WKgmjKaS5k=; b=lesGP3E7TdKq25bPEcIB5a9HArkkZCU/S9gmRXM2zigZD5bswcuF9m37Q7zhYq+BYT QtcL9CBuUyHRlpr7GQemj4ksieDL0Vl9S58KyOHYN6xUvFFL/J3ICx3kE9pTAEyzD5j6 Fo9YMyhSk/ZzJzSuJOpXnbMzzYir4GRo4vSUBDh8pwd0o4nyeY68Q+q+XKC3iZO4/a56 XYDqUaE+ug7MB4GJzVlzzizZKmSFRReFU8ErYuwGAUGxjjP/qA/q9Px5vTNdQmaaVOCS cuH7cplueFx0AUKCfnfLagXzom0EsS1Pr7vwZR4yxH3ByYZi+vU1Y4zC1QpJXDQRh1YE XHcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1724213716; x=1724818516; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LXVJ3zuY4OXAQ6BdiZGykzbneuHiLgk55WKgmjKaS5k=; b=IjdqDVrlXv6Qihu53a6/xhs//RhTfOBCW9lQjsRss6XRwpNI7T61WB3xu7lm+BrJxn vMZmLXVo87xzaAra9rhawmfV/rqQGH0TRn7SQVnTMF36OswNXA4pmlPYzs+Uw+x+EEIa 7g2Wsb5jWs8ggFSYVYK6bN+bF/MF7sLeIiTq+NBN76Vc2MpKapJdF11twzN5w97+Jivu 971I7xPwhGKbDqUIoImACdrgWEaDrOYxyNL2uqTrb5bp34GTsNosCNSM6eKqEbcAbBUL RYdxt34saJQvuPkezon08mZhzCBzP3PsoIwRIc1OpIksSW32/jIwLYotiIVJ4LDsNO+0 sf2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwmcgxcI8J1BtCgaVa6tD9x0MprwXi4YxOPiyzhCJ6d1A4DIpZB USKvTL339lixDG+kXPrRUwV/ETsEAX5gLrXwH6LPdG+E+p3j0+vq4a46Ka65IqjNTMEEbxKHK0H d/35l4Ge6aUHQ+qKj0xIG6LT9PZirpsSRCP4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHohk3MB8XobXc56/b2lrJEAlkIheBzpEMgjWdiUsrz+w/0zZC1l2arOcm0MjrGpwq5OsqNQzJZuz9WL9i80Xk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:2d09:b0:648:baba:542f with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6c096332740mr15788827b3.0.1724213715654; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Giorgi Gulbani <giorgig777@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:15:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CADgkwWy1mVnxFd5AzU-eo=S1-5zO5K_G8dR0xi8zSW=U7njAkg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Question on RFC 9298
To: quic@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000009dfd7062029ca25"
Message-ID-Hash: VKJEZ437PIC7TMR26NP27H6HQBATRVMK
X-Message-ID-Hash: VKJEZ437PIC7TMR26NP27H6HQBATRVMK
X-MailFrom: giorgig777@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-quic.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/-JYcwgfXSRUTb13GcHBLdqqXNsU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:quic-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:quic-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:quic-leave@ietf.org>
Dear all, I'd appreciate a lot your help to clarify the case, when the Context ID is set to 0. Quote: "When the Context ID field is set to zero, the UDP Proxying Payload field contains the unmodified payload of *a* UDP packet". Is it safe to assume that "*a* UDP packet" indicates only a single UDP packet may be included in the UDP Proxying Payload? In other words, is this a requirement that when the Context ID value is set to 0, UDP Proxying Payload shall contain a single UDP packet, right? Another question is about the case when the Context ID value is non-zero. Looks like in this use case RFC 9298 allows UDP Proxying Payload to contain more than one UDP packet. Is this correct? We are discussing the matter at 3GPP CT1 right now. Your views will definitely help us a lot. Thanks, Giorgi
- Question on RFC 9298 Giorgi Gulbani
- Fwd: Question on RFC 9298 Giorgi Gulbani