On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:10 PM Christian Huitema <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What we have now is simple: just explain in the spec that the extension > is treated as an extension of the ACK. I am not sure that we know enough > to specify a container format or any such superstructure. Consider for > example the ACK_MP proposals, in which a single packet could carry > several ACK_MP. There are good reasons to add a TIMESTAMP to such > packets, but you need only one of those for several ACK_MP. It would be > very easy to define "container" formats that break in such unanticipated > cases. > That's an excellent reason not to overcomplicate things and stick to independent frame types like TIMESTAMP.
