1994 called. It wanted to talk about distinguished encoding rules.
On 10/5/2020 8:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion on whether to require a minimal > encoding, but if we're not going to use QUIC's encoding as-is, then I > would rather stick with the existing scheme, which has twice as large > a range for the 1 byte encoding and is thus more compact for a range > of common cases. > > -Ekr > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:31 PM Marten Seemann <martenseem...@gmail.com > <mailto:martenseem...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > In that case, why use QUIC's encoding at all? It would just put > the burden on the receiver to check that the minimal encoding was > used. > Would it instead make more sense to modify QUIC's encoding, such > that the 2-byte encoding doesn't encode the numbers from 0 to > 16383, but the numbers from 64 to (16383 + 64), and equivalently > for 4 and 8-byte encodings? > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:22 AM Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com > <mailto:rs...@akamai.com>> wrote: > > Can you just say “QUIC rules but use the minimum possible length”? > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
