On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 08:02, Christian Huitema wrote: > When implementing Picoquic, I interpreted the specification as: if > sending a CID as part of preferred address extension, use #1, otherwise > use #1 for the next CID to be sent in "NEW CONNECTION ID" frame. I did > not find the specification ambiguous. But maybe that's just me.
It's good that I'm the only one who implemented it incorrectly. I'll get on to fixing it promptly. In terms of clarifications, what do people think about this: 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. +The sequence number for NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames starts at 2 when the preferred_address transport parameter is sent and 1 otherwise. I can open an erratum with that as Mirja suggests.
