Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make Client TP Optional #1892

Closed
nibanks opened this issue Oct 19, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Make Client TP Optional #1892

nibanks opened this issue Oct 19, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.

Comments

@nibanks
Copy link
Member

nibanks commented Oct 19, 2018

With Draft 15 all client transport parameters are now optional. I assume we will try to continue with that design as we add new ones (perhaps none in V1). Does it make sense to make inclusion of the QUIC TP extension as a whole optional, for the client?

@kazuho
Copy link
Member

kazuho commented Oct 19, 2018

While that could be possible, I wonder what the benefit of making it optional is. I would assume that every implementation will be sending some non-default settings value (e.g., initial_max_data), which means that making TP optional is essentially adding a conditional branch that will always turn on one side.

Additionally, we would be required to revisit the following requirement in QUIC-TLS section 8.2: Endpoints MUST NOT send this extension in a TLS connection that does not use QUIC (such as the use of TLS with TCP defined in [TLS13]). A fatal unsupported_extension alert MUST be sent if this extension is received when the transport is not QUIC.

Considering these two aspects, I prefer mandating the use of TP as we do now.

@ianswett
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed, always sending it is a lot easier than sometimes sending it. Additionally, I believe it'll always end up being necessary in real applications(ie: HTTP), so there's no real-world savings in omitting it.

@martinthomson martinthomson added design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. -transport labels Oct 21, 2018
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

No mention of version negotiation depending on them. I'm a little disappointed. Of course, I agree with the other comments recommending the current mandate be retained.

@nibanks nibanks closed this as completed Oct 21, 2018
@mnot mnot added the has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list. label Mar 5, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants