Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] A fixed transport parameter profile is legitimate (#3429)

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 07 February 2020 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8634120143 for <>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 00:58:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 FWef0l7NlVuU for <>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 00:58:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6904D1200DE for <>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 00:58:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 00:58:27 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581065907; bh=ryLV5OXf439xQshbdelegYp6kC8K+Vnzvybrz0v+8OA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wmbspKxbomJ3fCT/mFg4PUz8sqbPmNrj6kLWdzhjdrRdzQ3UDyVQwU4uutyQVFW1R 9tEJLTfG29IAkr6xUhl3oww2eCKwQZGLX1d0ksuctVMvBCz8/bUW5S/ErupHNcUFaK EjusfqeblnDa0YrG4nT4wpJEo5tM9AmjqiSL3lYI=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3429/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] A fixed transport parameter profile is legitimate (#3429)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3d26b3acd27_99f3ff983ecd96818795c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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, 07 Feb 2020 08:58:30 -0000

@marten-seemann IIRC the most recent occasion that we discussed this principle is when we changed the name of `idle-timeout` to `max-idle-timeout`.

The reason we changed the name was specifically due to this principle. Each endpoint declares its maximum, instead of conditioning its value on the others. That's why it's now called max-idle-timeout, and why we require each endpoint to calculate the minimum of the two.

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