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

Unclear conditions in long header descr. #2719

Closed
mikkelfj opened this issue May 17, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Unclear conditions in long header descr. #2719

mikkelfj opened this issue May 17, 2019 · 2 comments
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.

Comments

@mikkelfj
Copy link
Contributor

https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#long-header

Long headers are used for packets that are sent prior to the establishment of 1-RTT keys. Once both conditions are met, a sender switches to sending packets using the short header (Section 17.3).

What are these "both conditions"?

Also, can there be made a clear statement such that: all packets prior to Application PN space use long headers, and all packets in application PN space uses short headers?

And, the table of frames with section references, would it make sense to add PN space columns with an X where a frame is applicable?

@MikeBishop MikeBishop added -transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. labels May 17, 2019
@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor

Multiple issues listed here. Please consider opening separate issues rather than lumping them all together.

(1) This is old language we agreed to in Chicago. The requirement to shift to short headers was 1-RTT key availability and version agreement, to accommodate versions where the final keys might be available immediately (i.e. out-of-band agreement) but version negotiation still had to complete.

However, that's a principle for the invariants or such a version, not a requirement of this QUIC version -- and the version negotiation language this referenced is gone now.

(2) What is "Application PN space"? 0-RTT and 1-RTT? If so, then no -- 0-RTT packets carry application data but are long-header packets.

(3) Unrelated editorial suggestion -- please open a separate issue.

@mikkelfj
Copy link
Contributor Author

(3) see #2721

martinthomson added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 1, 2020
Fix #2719: replace defunct "both conditions" verbiage
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants