< draft-ietf-quic-invariants-04.txt   draft-ietf-quic-invariants-05.txt >
QUIC M. Thomson QUIC M. Thomson
Internet-Draft Mozilla Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track April 12, 2019 Intended status: Standards Track July 08, 2019
Expires: October 14, 2019 Expires: January 9, 2020
Version-Independent Properties of QUIC Version-Independent Properties of QUIC
draft-ietf-quic-invariants-04 draft-ietf-quic-invariants-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the properties of the QUIC transport protocol This document defines the properties of the QUIC transport protocol
that are expected to remain unchanged over time as new versions of that are expected to remain unchanged over time as new versions of
the protocol are developed. the protocol are developed.
Note to Readers Note to Readers
Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 14, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
The next four bytes include a 32-bit Version field (see Section 4.4). The next four bytes include a 32-bit Version field (see Section 4.4).
The next byte contains the length in bytes of the two Connection IDs The next byte contains the length in bytes of the two Connection IDs
(see Section 4.3) that follow. Each length is encoded as a 4-bit (see Section 4.3) that follow. Each length is encoded as a 4-bit
unsigned integer. The length of the Destination Connection ID (DCIL) unsigned integer. The length of the Destination Connection ID (DCIL)
occupies the high bits of the byte and the length of the Source occupies the high bits of the byte and the length of the Source
Connection ID (SCIL) occupies the low bits of the byte. An encoded Connection ID (SCIL) occupies the low bits of the byte. An encoded
length of 0 indicates that the connection ID is also 0 bytes in length of 0 indicates that the connection ID is also 0 bytes in
length. Non-zero encoded lengths are increased by 3 to get the full length. Non-zero encoded lengths are increased by 3 to get the full
length of the connection ID; the final value is therefore either 0 or length of the connection ID; the final value is therefore either 0 or
between 4 and 18 bytes in length (inclusive). For example, an byte between 4 and 18 bytes in length (inclusive). For example, a byte
with the value 0xe0 describes a 17 byte Destination Connection ID and with the value 0xe0 describes a 17 byte Destination Connection ID and
a zero byte Source Connection ID. a zero byte Source Connection ID.
The connection ID lengths are followed by two connection IDs. The The connection ID lengths are followed by two connection IDs. The
connection ID associated with the recipient of the packet (the connection ID associated with the recipient of the packet (the
Destination Connection ID) is followed by the connection ID Destination Connection ID) is followed by the connection ID
associated with the sender of the packet (the Source Connection ID). associated with the sender of the packet (the Source Connection ID).
The remainder of the packet contains version-specific content. The remainder of the packet contains version-specific content.
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 9
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA. This document makes no request of IANA.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[QUIC-TRANSPORT] [QUIC-TRANSPORT]
Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic- Multiplexed and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-
transport-18 (work in progress), April 2019. transport-20 (work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[QUIC-TLS] [QUIC-TLS]
Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using Transport Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using Transport
Layer Security (TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic- Layer Security (TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-
tls-18 (work in progress), April 2019. tls-20 (work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated [RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008, Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>.
8.3. URIs 8.3. URIs
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic
[2] https://github.com/quicwg [2] https://github.com/quicwg
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 7 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/