On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:24:32PM -0400, Ian Swett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:20 PM Dmitri Tikhonov wrote: > > > The part about "including the full packet number" is just not clear. In > > particular, does it mean that a 4-byte encoding must be used? One could > > intepret the spec to mean that a packet number is not to be truncated. > > So, for example, packet number 123 would fit into one byte. The decoder > > would use this logic if an ACK was not yet sent, and the other logic if > > an ACK was sent. > > > > Specifying explicitly how many bytes to use to encode a packet number in > > this case would remove this ambiguity. > > > > Care to write a PR to clarify this?
Assuming that mandating the 4-byte encoding is what's intended. Or is it rather a "do not truncate" rule (which is also Christian's reading)? I also remember there being a part in one of the drafts limiting the range of (small "i") initial packet numbers, but I cannot find this text now. Has it been subsumed (possibly by this rule)? - Dmitri.
