Re: Grease the packet type?

[Ryan Hamilton <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 7:30 AM Martin Duke <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ryan!
>
> The honeypot issue is a real one -- I've made it pretty clear that this
> draft is not doing functional changes to QUIC unless we discover a
> vulnerability or a deadlock condition in v1.
>

Woo hoo! :) That definitely seems like the right goal.

> But they would still be "compatible" in the sense of the VN draft -- a v1
> Initial packet can be translated to a v2 packet with 100% fidelity, and
> vice versa. I'm not sure what you mean by "wire compatible", but as all the
> keys are derived differently, we are already well past a v1-only endpoint
> being able to read v2.
>

Fair point! What I meant was that a simple version alias will not quite be
sufficient here. An implement which already supports, say, v1 and draft-29
will need to write new code to handle this new packet type logic. (Of
course, this is not much code). It won't, however, be able to simply add an
entry to an existing data structure which associates salts with versions.

That being said, this is a minor point. As long as we're all focused on
getting v2 out with minimal change then hopefully this won't actually open
up Pandora's box.

Cheers,

Ryan