add a stream-id: assignable and readable. Closes #1010

[mwelzl]

Closes #1010

[philsbln]

Does this make sense outside of a protocol-specific context?

I am aware that this is a different can of worms adding protocol specific parameters to clone, but this looks like a strange concept to add an Integer here that may have different side effects in QUIC and SCTP…

[mwelzl]

That's a very good question. This feature request came up in the QuIC mapping part of the discussion in Vienna, see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/minutes-113-taps-01

Not sure what to do: keep it as it is, remove it, or add the protocol:

• assign: "if protocol = x, then stream ID = y"
• read: "stream ID is y, and your protocol is x"
  I have to say, I don't like this particular way, as it would complicate matters quite a bit. But how else to do it?

[britram]

All of the multistreaming protocols we know about have an integer stream identifier.

I suppose a future protocol could use some sort of binary blob for identifying streams (which are... pedantically... representable as arbitrary-length integers)

[tfpauly]

Interim discussion: let's make Clone() and Initiate() take a group of protocol-specific parameters (optionally) which allow protocols like QUIC and SCTP to extend this.

[mwelzl]

I just made a very minimalist update, where "protocolSpecificProperties" is only a parameter of Clone(). Why not list it as readable properties, and why not as a parameter of Initiate, as we discussed?

• What's the point of saying "there can be protocol-specific properties which are currently not defined, and they can be readable"? This is for a future spec to say, when it proposes a new transport property.
• Regarding Initiate(), I think this should in fact not be a parameter to the Initiate Action itself, but a transport property to be supplied when creating a Preconnection. Again, this made me find that I would only write something like "There can also be transport properties that are not yet defined", which doesn't seem to be useful text.

In conclusion, I found that only the Clone() Action needs this as a new parameter. Everything else is for future mapping documents.

Thoughts?

[philsbln]

Thank you for your analysis – I really like the minimalistic approach.

I would prefer a less editorial framing as the one proposed.

[mwelzl]

Many thanks! I incorporated your suggestion, and made a tiny edit to it (behaviour => behavior, underlaying => underlying, and "stream or connection" instead of "stream/connection").

[philsbln]

Thanks – I guess we have a fairly good solution.