-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 204
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
Expands CID size text just a bit #2008
Conversation
draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
Outdated
subsequent Initial packets are routed to the same server. | ||
The final version used for a connection might be different from the version of | ||
the first Initial from the client. To enable consistent routing through the | ||
handshake, a client SHOULD select a Destination Connection ID length long enough |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
handshake, a client SHOULD select a Destination Connection ID length long enough | |
handshake, a client SHOULD select an initial Destination Connection ID length long enough |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that accepting this suggestion directly on GitHub will break lint -- you'll need to rewrap.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I gave that feedback to github on this feature - that you can handle line lengths.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With @mikkelfj's change, LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IIRC, the reason this wasn't stated before is that you shouldn't be routing based on a client-chosen CID to begin with. Implying that you can/do sometimes is encouraging bad behavior.
@MikeBishop: There's an implicit assumption though in the text about this. Are you opposed to this PR? |
Fair enough; this PR doesn't introduce that problem, though it magnifies it a bit. I've opened #2026 to resolve that. |
No description provided.