Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Address Validation Nits (#2468)

MikkelFJ <> Fri, 15 February 2019 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E146129A87 for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:12:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q76TC7X2G2X2 for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B570812867A for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:12:24 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1550218344; bh=KbxeyLGR8Vk3FLEqMxEI3a7vqVX2sgzOxFot2hxDBEQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=fZKm2l8unQR1k6tHWYLhdcL+rBzWBzJFjRShiCXNCyQU1FDgiDA+a8eBAVOwlWu6J E7OQTImnhBy2sC+eL6orCwo/asG9+Ugv3pVmyJ/pztcpgsEZknT/jpjtJo0+RVVhJ6 Rw477UYtXD73ISsz9VX/03JcVpw877Wwjz2l4ZQE=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2468/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Address Validation Nits (#2468)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c6674688f76b_2b293f88814d45c410058f8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:12:27 -0000

> Should there be normative text mandating that the packet number be increased?

I think we need a new issue on that. The information about this is scattered around issuing CID's, path validation, retransmission of Initial. It would be good with a clear statement of when the packet number starts counting. I also believe that there is somewhere text to the effect that a CID cannot have the same PN twice, but that does not apply to Retry.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: