Re: WGLC for Datagram Extension

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Ok, thanks for this.

I would further suggest that an example flow be included; even if it is 
just two or three datagrams.  Showing it all in operation is always helpful.

Eliot

On 17.09.21 02:05, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Agreed that the word “strongly” can simply be removed.
>
> Applications using QUIC can choose to associate particular datagrams 
> with data sent on a stream—like HTTP/3 choosing to add a value 
> calculated based on stream IDs into the payload of the DATAGRAM 
> frame—but such associations do not belong to the transport protocol.
>
> https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/52 
> <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/52>
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy
>
>> On Sep 16, 2021, at 4:48 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, at 07:00, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>> DATAGRAM frames belong to a QUIC connection as a whole, and are not
>>>> strongly associated with any stream ID at the QUIC layer
>>>
>>> What does "strongly associated" mean in this context? Apologies if this
>>> is well trodden ground.
>>
>> This is unfortunately so well-trodden that this text was added 
>> without consideration for people who weren't involved in the 
>> trampling process.
>>
>> I think that "strongly" can be struck here, it's working too hard. 
>>  And smart people will latch onto it.
>>
>> Context:
>>
>> When we use DATAGRAMs in HTTP (and likely in other contexts) there 
>> will be a need to bind each DATAGRAM to a (request) stream.  That's 
>> necessary to ensure that flows of DATAGRAMs can be routed by gateways 
>> and the like along with the stream.  There were lots of debates about 
>> how to manage that binding and the layer at which it would be 
>> documented.  This text is likely intended to record the conclusion 
>> that this document definitely isn't where that sort of binding 
>> occurs, but for someone without that history.  It doesn't really 
>> achieve that though and because it doesn't need to (why would you 
>> think that any association exists?), it ends up being distracting.
>>
>