IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [QUIC] 2 issues for the hopper: terminology of packet vs sequence # and byte order

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Sat, 05 November 2016 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.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 5FD7A12940F for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 01:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=netapp.onmicrosoft.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 aCHHkJ5VNCsN for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 01:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx143.netapp.com (mx143.netapp.com [216.240.21.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84EE81293E8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 01:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,448,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="154258490"
Received: from vmwexchts01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.12]) by mx143-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2016 01:08:52 -0700
Received: from VMWEXCCAS12-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.30) by VMWEXCHTS01-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 01:09:02 -0700
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.120.60.153) by VMWEXCCAS12-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 01:09:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netapp.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-netapp-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=cd5CKmUBX5wQsgyuqM1ScdaOcINl4j60W62DP291WMs=; b=Ae0N324axlY8uSxMIA+PgOdMIAVZaEnZRIHhs0pz8GPzD6umG5DsAlgJD90p/D5fFI2RAK81qSdjhNTU+L0CVbl1eFSrWuItU+QVt71fODj2n0ThAT2y4qC0cBaRwUPgVmXD8XWd60sJDKWX6hejzXOpU9GJ1CkOGVu7R9xSCnQ=
Received: from BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.157.18) by BN3PR0601MB1155.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.157.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.693.12; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:09:01 +0000
Received: from BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.157.18]) by BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.157.18]) with mapi id 15.01.0707.006; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:09:00 +0000
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Thread-Topic: [QUIC] 2 issues for the hopper: terminology of packet vs sequence # and byte order
Thread-Index: AQHSNt6kd+iyBE6wJkezIDlx1WlgV6DKCfuA
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 08:09:00 +0000
Message-ID: <08188AC9-60C7-4E71-AE01-54D9FD487918@netapp.com>
References: <CAOdDvNo_WjE-39uWm49aFH-_TCeaKdik2hsGbSduhowtKqNHqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNo_WjE-39uWm49aFH-_TCeaKdik2hsGbSduhowtKqNHqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=lars@netapp.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [2001:a61:31d8:9c01:a0ba:6217:872d:f2bc]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d50bd906-c45a-4476-8789-08d40553002b
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0601MB1155; 7:JeqcArmNmmk+GEaoQ85Huz1KSXago7f/f+iEz3Ai5R37v6TAJlQGbEsGRpp+A1yObyVWjiF8AOJCOO3zX/GiWlNbCs8dFC4y41VL9ZZ9n9VzZLiDSTbCH2B5ui1in/KCag5u9cgo1TdoJOWga9NMgE0tkIU1FocDh8xVpJBiJq2wdwQMe7hGXU+9Ys2Uavx3hvdgIrvMi8SDdZfycAYujT1VCELun6/2lT7PN5PsyYSGR1fbOxe/8eSirHa1lkKkeu2E04HkdDVbWdTIQ63nMfZKECDNjFV/u/bkIkohnO5BPQDLvzSQQTXSpKJo0G348Jlva2uwAaINRexhNtXsUQsMpYMstSpB+IabJ4q1+sg=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1155;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR0601MB11551BBDDF2897932F24F5B0A7A50@BN3PR0601MB1155.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6042046)(6043046); SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1155; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1155;
x-forefront-prvs: 011787B9DD
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(377424004)(199003)(24454002)(92566002)(105586002)(6916009)(305945005)(7736002)(2900100001)(57306001)(2950100002)(86362001)(6116002)(19580395003)(3280700002)(106116001)(102836003)(97736004)(106356001)(19580405001)(99286002)(7846002)(4326007)(110136003)(122556002)(586003)(2906002)(82746002)(83716003)(36756003)(3660700001)(87936001)(5660300001)(33656002)(10400500002)(68736007)(8676002)(8936002)(77096005)(81166006)(5002640100001)(81156014)(50986999)(189998001)(76176999)(50226002)(101416001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1155; H:BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: netapp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3C82280753F1EE4D8959158B58D50992@namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Nov 2016 08:09:00.8879 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4b0911a0-929b-4715-944b-c03745165b3a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0601MB1155
X-OriginatorOrg: netapp.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/C9FrWHEb1UgP2uTkOWz2OYpY7jM>
Cc: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [QUIC] 2 issues for the hopper: terminology of packet vs sequence # and byte order
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 08:14:06 -0000

On 2016-11-04, at 22:01, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Second, draft-hamilton-quic-transport-protocol-01 boldly uses little endian encoding. Ya gotta admire that chutzpah in an IETF draft :) From a processor alignment pov, it makes perfect sense and I would support it on a clean slate or on a well layered protocol. quic however, by design, is neither of those things.

Chair hat off: That totally threw me when I started to implement, because apparently my mind is trained to automatically insert htonl() etc., and it took me a minute or so to understand why my code was producing incorrectly laid out packets.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email