Subject: Driving towards agreement on alternate header proposal

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:28:48 -0800

Stepping back a bit from the weeds, there seems to be general agreement on
the shape of the header. It seems like we want to continue discussing the
connection ID issue, but I'll note that this header reformulation does not
change the status quo on that issue. The connection ID is present,
optional, and negotiable in the current spec and this proposal retains
those properties.

This new formulation addresses a number of issues in the tracker however.

Per my read, it closes:
#35 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/35>: Starting packet
number
#56 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/56>: Extending flags
#119 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/119>: Server-proposed
connection ID
#133 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/133>: Connection ID in
version negotiation
#135 <http://dos%20using%20version%20negotiation%20packets/>: DoS using
Version Negotiation Packets
#147 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/147>: Reflection Attack
Resistance
#185 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/185>: Reliable
identification of the initial packet for a connection
#193 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/193>: Flags section is
kind of confusing
#244 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/244>: Need a NONCE in
version negotiation packets
#293 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/293>: Does the
connection ID need to be in a consistent location
#295 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/295>: Connection ID on a
version negotiation packet

And it addresses some of:
#148 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/148>: QUIC packet header
complexity
#170 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/170>: Connection ID
collisions

Given the number of issues it closes, and with the understanding that (i)
this format may still change as QUIC evolves, and (ii) we can continue the
connection ID question on a separate bug/issue, I'd like to see if we can
accept the general proposal as a step forward.

Does this seem reasonable? I feel like we're moving towards editor-ready,
but I am looking for a signal from the chairs to indicate this.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:01:07 -0800

I, at least, would like some more time to review this proposal, given that
it
just appeared two days ago, so I would request that the chairs hold editor
ready till it's been around at least a week

-Ekr

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]> wrote:

> #147 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/147>: Reflection
> Attack Resistance
> #295 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/295>: Connection ID on
> a version negotiation packet
>
> #148 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/148>: QUIC packet
> header complexity

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:03:36 -0800

SGTM.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Stepping back a bit from the weeds, there seems to be general agreement
>> on the shape of the header. It seems like we want to continue discussing
>> the connection ID issue, but I'll note that this header reformulation does
>> not change the status quo on that issue. The connection ID is present,
>> #133 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/133>: Connection ID
>> in version negotiation
>> #193 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/193>: Flags section
>> is kind of confusing
>> #295 <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/295>: Connection ID
>> on a version negotiation packet
>>