The way I understand it, we want to say that QUIC makes no effort to
partition the space of datagrams into subcategories. Applications send
and receive datagrams, and the conceptual API is, "here is a datagram
that should be sent or just arrived on this QUIC connection". I
application want to treat some datagrams as duck calls and some other
datagrams as music packets, they can do that, but they have to do it
themselves by decorating the datagrams appropriately. And whether they
do that using stream IDs or packet codes or sequence numbers is not
QUIC's business.
On 9/16/2021 5:05 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote:
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.
