Agreed that the word “strongly” can simply be removed. Applications using QUIC can choose to associate particular datagrams with data sent on a stream—like HTTP/3 choosing to add a value calculated based on stream IDs into the payload of the DATAGRAM frame—but such associations do not belong to the transport protocol.
https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/52 <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/52> Thanks, Tommy > On Sep 16, 2021, at 4:48 PM, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, at 07:00, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> DATAGRAM frames belong to a QUIC connection as a whole, and are not >>> strongly associated with any stream ID at the QUIC layer >> >> What does "strongly associated" mean in this context? Apologies if this >> is well trodden ground. > > This is unfortunately so well-trodden that this text was added without > consideration for people who weren't involved in the trampling process. > > I think that "strongly" can be struck here, it's working too hard. And smart > people will latch onto it. > > Context: > > When we use DATAGRAMs in HTTP (and likely in other contexts) there will be a > need to bind each DATAGRAM to a (request) stream. That's necessary to ensure > that flows of DATAGRAMs can be routed by gateways and the like along with the > stream. There were lots of debates about how to manage that binding and the > layer at which it would be documented. This text is likely intended to > record the conclusion that this document definitely isn't where that sort of > binding occurs, but for someone without that history. It doesn't really > achieve that though and because it doesn't need to (why would you think that > any association exists?), it ends up being distracting. >
