Subject: [Masque] On CONNECT-UDP Extensibility

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 18:03:48 -0400

Hi MASQUE Enthusiasts,

Last week at the IETF 113 MASQUE session, we discussed starting the WGLC
for CONNECT-UDP. As part of that discussion, the sense of the room was that
it was OK to progress CONNECT-UDP without having it define all possible
registration mechanisms, and Ted proposed that we write up an example of
the simple header-based registration mechanism as a separate draft. Mirja
proposed using the ECN extension for that, so I spent some time revising
that draft to have it fit this purpose. That revised draft is now available
at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schinazi-masque-connect-udp-ecn-02.html

Thanks,
David

---

From: Ian Swett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:34:42 -0400

This looks sensible to me, though I'd suggest: "When indicating support for
this extension, the proxy send the client's chosen context ID as the "ECN"
field value." to "To indicate support for this extension, the proxy MUST
send the client's chosen context ID as the "ECN" field value."

Just to clarify that the IDs need to match for the negotiation to complete.

Ian

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 6:04 PM David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> --
> Masque mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>