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

Martin Duke's nits #4449

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Dec 22, 2020
Merged

Martin Duke's nits #4449

merged 8 commits into from
Dec 22, 2020

Conversation

martinthomson
Copy link
Member

This should address all of them at once; one per commit for those that I think need action.

This is probably OK:

13.3 "it is not forbidden to retransmit copies of frames from lost packets" Is this true for PATH_CHALLENGE? I thought this quite explicitly shouldn't be copied.

This is not expressly forbidden. We do say this:

The endpoint MUST use unpredictable data in every PATH_CHALLENGE frame so that it can associate the peer's response with the corresponding PATH_CHALLENGE.

Which doesn't really contradict the other. FWIW, I'm not a fan of allowing frames to be copied, implementations really should do that, but it's a consequence of having frame idempotency.

This is one I'm not sure about:

14 "Thus, modern IPv4 and all IPv6 network paths will be able to support QUIC." Generally true, but should be qualified for the presence of arbitrary numbers of tunnels.

What is the prevailing advice regarding MTU and tunnels? Clearly when you tunnel you get a smaller MTU, but I haven't seen what happens when IPv6 is tunneled over a network that has a minimum MTU. Most paths don't have that small an MTU, so it might be that things just fail.

draft-ietf-quic-transport.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@janaiyengar janaiyengar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me, with @ianswett 's nit.

Co-authored-by: ianswett <ianswett@users.noreply.github.com>
@janaiyengar janaiyengar merged commit 2958106 into master Dec 22, 2020
@janaiyengar janaiyengar deleted the martinduke-nits branch December 22, 2020 22:36
@janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor

I realized that there are some answers here in the description, but probably best to move them to the relevant issues anyways.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants