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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you just say “QUIC rules but use the minimum possible length”? >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
