[quicwg/base-drafts] Is path validation a SHOULD or a MUST -- pick one! (#2580)

[Igor Lubashev <[e-mail]>]

Section 9 (Connection Migration) says:

> [...] an endpoint SHOULD perform path validation (Section 8.2) if it detects a change in the IP address of its peer.

Section 9.2 (Responding to Connection Migration) says:

> In response to such a packet [a packet from a new peer address containing a non-probing frame], an endpoint MUST start sending subsequent packets to the new peer address and MUST initiate path validation (Section 8.2) to verify the peer’s ownership of the unvalidated address.

So:

1. Is performing path validation (Section 8.2) a SHOULD or a MUST?  I would prefer "a MUST, unless the endpoint has other means validate the validate the new path"

2. If sending subsequent packets immediately a MUST?  Not even a "MUST after validation"?

-- 
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/2580