RE: QUIC - Our schedule and scope

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
Just to put the focus

The relevant text in section 5.8 in the transport document is 


"Between different versions the following things are guaranteed to remain constant:

   o  the location of the header form flag,

   o  the location of the Connection ID flag in short headers,

   o  the location and size of the Connection ID field in both header forms,

   o  the location and size of the Version field in long headers,

   o  the location and size of the Packet Number field in long headers, 

   o  the type, format and semantics of the Version Negotiation packet."


This is what we need to agree on.

Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eggert, Lars [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: יום א 29 אוקטובר 2017 08:45
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; QUIC WG; Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> Subject: Re: QUIC - Our schedule and scope
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2017-10-29, at 7:33, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I think we must be very careful when defining the "invariants" to allow for
> other uses.
> 
> agreed. And, we must be very careful to not make future extensions like
> multipath, partial reliability, etc. more difficult to support than necessary.
> 
> So to me personally, that kind of forward-looking discussion - to ensure we
> retain the extensibility needed for the future - remains fully in scope. But
> there is a fine line between a general extensibility argument and an
> argument that says "my proposal for future extension X is this, and therefore
> QUICv1 needs to do Y now".
> 
> Lars