Hey, I discovered a problem in my implementation of NEW_CONNECTION_ID that quicly didn't like. I was always skipping sequence number 1, even when there was no preferred address, which caused quicly to think that I was exceeding the limits it set.
Kazuho, Jana, and I all agree that my code was wrong, but I found it pretty hard to clearly identify how this was specified in the spec. Here's what it says: > The sequence number of the initial connection ID is 0. If the > preferred_address transport parameter is sent, the sequence number of the > supplied connection ID is 1. > > Additional connection IDs are communicated to the peer using > NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames (Section 19.15). The sequence number on each newly > issued connection ID MUST increase by 1. -- https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/rfc9000.html#name-issuing-connection-ids Is it abundantly clear that I'm wrong based on this? Did I miss a clearer piece of text elsewhere? Or, should we be looking to open an erratum? Cheers, Martin
