Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Address Validation Nits (#2468)

From: martinduke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:51:59 -0800

Although not super-important, the biggest decision in here is that the packet number of the response to a RETRY is 1. Based on interop experience, I believe this is the semi-consensus of implementers.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468

-- Commit Summary --

  * Address Validation Nits

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (35)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:01:41 +0000 (UTC)

@martinthomson pushed 1 commit.

e29d87232df0cb575a627f749a65e731a8aeb2ff  wrap

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468/files/5a15b96470fee82bf047a21e6956f1a2b7adb9ce..e29d87232df0cb575a627f749a65e731a8aeb2ff

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:01:49 +0000 (UTC)

Merged #2468 into master.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468#event-2141204119

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:43:34 -0800

Should there be normative text mandating that the packet number be increased?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468#issuecomment-463862188

---

From: MikkelFJ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:12:24 -0800

> Should there be normative text mandating that the packet number be increased?

I think we need a new issue on that. The information about this is scattered around issuing CID's, path validation, retransmission of Initial. It would be good with a clear statement of when the packet number starts counting. I also believe that there is somewhere text to the effect that a CID cannot have the same PN twice, but that does not apply to Retry.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468#issuecomment-463946693