IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Word-smithed version of Ted's resolution to #3842 from the mailing list (#3945)

mirjak <notifications@github.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A203A12C3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id imigBtYu9ewv for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0261D3A12B1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36900E1EFB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598875376; bh=zcxnzYUjqg00qX6twAyNLKWM91rXFgmI/Z6OXxlx6w0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BO2D+jdc0EA/k93TLPid3Uuve9q99EIm4S8IC0R3Dt7TaQb8+PoXNQT5pNo/akfZM wB1ff9orfMT8o5hBv72h1raR5pEAKu0ZV6PFJbO7vUzrSIB8TXVHoadYeilQMtrfw7 RNLkV/LwcxwyhGYq7hd1DOqdXsmoqIpArlg+HtBc=
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:02:56 -0700
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7TC7VH2X2TJ4UN22V5LDD7BEVBNHHCPFZD6A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945/review/478555061@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Word-smithed version of Ted's resolution to #3842 from the mailing list (#3945)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4ce6f025b84_5b0d19641545d6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mirjak
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/AoMyqvvH4Fow47gUQ3HnIIzicvU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:02:58 -0000

@mirjak commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2432,17 +2432,18 @@ The capacity available on the new path might not be the same as the old path.
 Packets sent on the old path MUST NOT contribute to congestion control or RTT
 estimation for the new path.
 
-On confirming a peer's ownership of its new address, an endpoint MUST
+On confirming a peer's ownership of its new address, an endpoint SHOULD

This is a thing I'm never sure about but I would use MUST with an explicit exception. While SHOULD would mean there might be more exceptions...

-- 
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/pull/3945#discussion_r480083617

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email