Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] TLS spec should not specify mapping of frames to packets, except for CRYPTO (#4097)

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:49:15 -0700

There is a long development in the section 4 of the TLS draft to explain:
```
Some frames are prohibited in different packet number spaces.  The
   rules here generalize those of TLS, in that frames associated with
   establishing the connection can usually appear in packets in any
   packet number space, whereas those associated with transferring data
   can only appear in the application data packet number space:

   *  PADDING, PING, and CRYPTO frames MAY appear in any packet number
      space.

   *  CONNECTION_CLOSE frames signaling errors at the QUIC layer (type
      0x1c) MAY appear in any packet number space.  CONNECTION_CLOSE
      frames signaling application errors (type 0x1d) MUST only appear
      in the application data packet number space.

   *  ACK frames MAY appear in any packet number space, but can only
      acknowledge packets that appeared in that packet number space.
      However, as noted below, 0-RTT packets cannot contain ACK frames.

   *  All other frame types MUST only be sent in the application data
      packet number space.

   Note that it is not possible to send the following frames in 0-RTT
   packets for various reasons: ACK, CRYPTO, HANDSHAKE_DONE, NEW_TOKEN,
   PATH_RESPONSE, and RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID.  A server MAY treat receipt
   of these frames in 0-RTT packets as a connection error of type
   PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
```
I think that this text does not belong in the specification of **TLS**, which should stick to just explaining how to send the CRYPTO frames. Could it be replaced by a reference to the transport draft?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4097

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:05:23 -0700

related to #3717?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4097#issuecomment-692155685

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:26:51 -0700

@LPardue Yes it is related, but the specific problem with section 4 is not mentioned in issue #3717 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4097#issuecomment-692231906

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:35:04 -0700

Agree. Thanks for cross-linking them. 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4097#issuecomment-692236195

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 04:55:27 -0700

Anyone care to prepare a PR, if we want to make this change?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4097#issuecomment-696066304

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:30:46 -0700

@larseggert I did just that -- PR #4136

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4097#issuecomment-697052140

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:28:43 -0700

Closed #4097 via #4136.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4097#event-3800607337