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> 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> 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
