Subject: Packet protection and ACK

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:14:22 +1100

Issue 34 has a discussion about what rules we need around the use of
packet protection and ACK frames.

I've opened https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/336 in the
hopes that I can close the issue by capturing the conclusion there.

In short, ACK can't include acknowledgments for packets that have more
protection than the packet that the ACK sits in.  This is a little
tricky during the handshake, but the rules aren't that complex.

This might be a technical change (I'm not 100% sure, but I think that
it's at least consistent with practice), so I thought that I'd run
this by the list.  Feel free to object.

---

From: Ian Swett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:42:21 -0500

I think this is definitely the right thing to do.  I'm not sure if it's a
change, or just specifying correct behavior in a case we'd only recently
started thinking about in more detail.

Thanks for the PR.

---

From: Ryan Hamilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:38:43 -0800

+1! This definitely seems like the right approach to me.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Ian Swett <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]
> > wrote:
>