Fwd: Question on RFC 9298
Giorgi Gulbani <giorgig777@gmail.com> Wed, 21 August 2024 04:25 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 A01D5C14F703 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.857
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.857 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 QG7JvPnYQrMW for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x112e.google.com (mail-yw1-x112e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112e]) (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 3E9BEC17C882 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x112e.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6b5c37a3138so33223967b3.1 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1724214334; x=1724819134; darn=ietfa.amsl.com; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xksb5+amy4ThJ3mTj8qRJ93Bqw3FsS9btQLLsl0uRNs=; b=S0lw35aaMm5XNv04e/KSDjWVNteltdeRvGxMagBlX0Im1OWxbZUXyrD0/sGUuTIkFh 1bd4xQopXELzprfLjpe/7PESorpxagQuyTT4Eo2ZoAKVmImJb2uQa+8ouBpY1vyA6pdp Dwc95H3vwzQXmvHCnrbHqSArnhtgX9+xljHWK55ZSbanY3wtQRFqEW62Ze2LM8PCdVIe NGGjuJyBft7J71shxYjF8TIE8UWuH0RbWf3po69L8oOV90P5Q/W2xFN5iaJdE1r98S5e I+A/YsGm28zfDDUp5ODRoo3QMpluotvRIPe+uYONxCXRtTe6YAeXym4k/N7hNScuxtwo ekLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1724214334; x=1724819134; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xksb5+amy4ThJ3mTj8qRJ93Bqw3FsS9btQLLsl0uRNs=; b=Ff1XBFn53ooS/YpWAWM06CR/kzVVYx4llSxeZrpPb/Df7pRkKtn+/WG3yhAqSEg4x6 upVli6xl+PtC0db1dMYqDmzRdTL3AlUoaRZd/FC5TY+tCc9qGCJ0DyLXawJtaw/l6S9g 3LwL66HTW3MgNYAeqY4w4V9MUg7yoyuuUfA1bPtkhOSva+WNOFihM7taYw6/2JbXWDZp ehgLSpkB1vkWXB+FDc0U/oNUaYs5Ux259rM92P3qzGehzgSmuf6MYUICejVmoOJNC6yx D8fwC5donZpn0PuGwvKRKpw9yQOAwrEnp9bN1glvwVvC1I1ECDjkLNOZu0dtpepNWDUO WmAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyoDlc+VXXYBXFKLQTAHsv+r2DgBfRwYv6eHw4kr1oeFfAFDXTR BPZd9hbw1zXEWu9GrKXNoOTlL8dUcdZw3AfqakkL4CyheXVDAnEYFTgKFZtlU0z269qV+WUBAmP mp/iTvb9/5kGOA7vkxD54bXjhk0EjmgRi
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFoGqLg1Xf7Xdf80xDWipvFZMCtSx/4fAphM2uVVdK32WhLCaqmKQS2aZIG0fa4ClbZOUT659fUa1wglQVzB/Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:250b:b0:6b1:8d2:8819 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6c09cd4fe18mr12811977b3.15.1724214333868; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADgkwWy1mVnxFd5AzU-eo=S1-5zO5K_G8dR0xi8zSW=U7njAkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADgkwWy1mVnxFd5AzU-eo=S1-5zO5K_G8dR0xi8zSW=U7njAkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Giorgi Gulbani <giorgig777@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:25:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CADgkwWxDuiEMno4qwO4_zXu7sq_BMgZFSyvnnFuWCfRspH=R3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Question on RFC 9298
To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3139e062029eefb"
Message-ID-Hash: U52QHFPDPCLH5Q3WTIR2WOUZZH6Z233I
X-Message-ID-Hash: U52QHFPDPCLH5Q3WTIR2WOUZZH6Z233I
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/Li-yWwnEV_Z39ffeDVuqfLWSXVk>
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>
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Giorgi Gulbani <giorgig777@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 6:15 AM Subject: Question on RFC 9298 To: <quic@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