Hi Lucas,
I reviewed the sections of transport-29 you highlighted as well as
PR 3915. The requirement went from "0-RTT packets *could* need to
use a longer PN encoding" to "the full packet number MUST be included
before receiving an ACK for a PN space."
There are two reasons why I believe this to be a design change:
1. This is a new MUST.
2. This requirement will trigger a code change in lsquic. Were
it an editorial change only, this would not be the case.
- Dmitri.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:54:49PM +0100, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:35 PM Dmitri Tikhonov
> <[1][email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> There is a new paragraph in transport-30:
>
> Prior to receiving an acknowledgement for a packet number space, the
> full packet number MUST be included.
>
> This requirement was added in 35b28e13aa41ebc53b3e053a8b52868bfb81a8e8,
> while the actual "MUST" was added in
> f009224fcd784f2e5ea88bdb11dcdb4adfb0badd
>
> I have two problems with this change:
>
> 1. The new requirement does not seem to have had a corresponding
> GitHub issue where this design change(?) would have been
> discussed.
>
> The paragraph is an editorialized version of what was in draft 29, section
> 17.1 and 17.2.3. The work was done on an editorial PR
> [2]https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3915. I don't see any
> changes that would have warranted a design issue.
> Lucas
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. mailto:[email protected]
> 2. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3915
