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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

max_udp_payload_size (0x03) needs a ref. to packet size section. #3738

Closed
gorryfair opened this issue Jun 5, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3743
Closed

max_udp_payload_size (0x03) needs a ref. to packet size section. #3738

gorryfair opened this issue Jun 5, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3743
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.

Comments

@gorryfair
Copy link
Contributor

In max_udp_payload_size (0x03) the following text seems good:
/This limit does act as an additional constraint on datagram size in the same way as the path MTU, but it is a property of the endpoint and not the path./

  • could it refer to the appropriate section in the QUIC spec?
  • In DPLPMTUD the same value is known as “MAX_PLPMTU”, Section 5.3.1 - in case you wish to cite that.
@martinthomson martinthomson added the editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. label Jun 9, 2020
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

MAX_PLPMTU is slightly different as it refers to the IP layer, but you are right that it constrains the same underlying variable.

I'll add a cross-reference though.

martinthomson added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2020
@martinthomson
Cross reference packet size section
39543a4 
I did not add a citation for MAX_PLPMTU as that is subtly different and
that seems like it would be more of a liability than a help in this
case.

Closes #3738.
martinthomson added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2020
@martinthomson
Cross reference packet size section
b432f15 
I did not add a citation for MAX_PLPMTU as that is subtly different and
that seems like it would be more of a liability than a help in this
case.

Closes #3738.
@martinthomson martinthomson mentioned this issue Jun 9, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Cross reference packet size section quicwg/base-drafts
3 participants
@martinthomson @larseggert @gorryfair