[quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify response to a non-probing migration when no CIDs are available (#4788)

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

Section 9.3 of Transport(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-34#section-9.3) says:

"If the recipient permits the migration, it MUST send subsequent
   packets to the new peer address and MUST initiate path validation
   (Section 8.2) to verify the peer's ownership of the address if
   validation is not already underway."

In section 9.5(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-34#section-9.5)

"Similarly, an endpoint MUST NOT reuse a connection ID when sending to
   more than one destination address.  Due to network changes outside
   the control of its peer, an endpoint might receive packets from a new
   source address with the same destination connection ID, in which case
   it MAY continue to use the current connection ID with the new remote
   address while still sending from the same local address."

So as long as it's an unintentional change, everything is clear.  But if the destination address changes and the incoming CID changes, but the sender(ie: server) doesn't have any more CIDs, it's not clear what should be done, as the two MUSTs seem to contradict one another.  Or maybe they imply the server can't send anything?

-- 
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/4788