There's a few fields that are variable-length integers, which are used to communicate only a handful of defined types. I'm guessing this is done to hedge some bets against future growth; that seems ok. But that leaves the door open to implementations doing annoything things like encoding 0x1 in 62 bits.
There's a few fields that are variable-length integers, which are used to communicate only a handful of defined types. I'm guessing this is done to hedge some bets against future growth; that seems ok. But that leaves the door open to implementations doing annoything things like encoding 0x1 in 62 bits.
RFC 9000 includes a requirement that frame types are encoded using the smallest integer encoding https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000.html#section-12.4-18. We might want to levy a similar requirement in this document