Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix congestion control permissiveness (#3248)

ianswett <> Wed, 27 November 2019 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7240120B5F for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:07:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 2gJw38DNp1UG for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC087120B60 for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:07:10 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574831231; bh=ESZTGfFHB7B2+pfExkgwVM8MqJEdBhBtG8pep1TpP5Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WLL/8T65Es5Yhig9AKmfm1GSb49OKV8yNUWPY4pbWgNx+p9HztajuhlnwnkfwUfBR MBui2mpCcevXZDla6Fo4ssBLU9Al5FwTTslf1IcyI+rV1LhZ/TOTkhzEtSn37OVCtp cnfCZdUw3UvPmyMlZepUqli8GCTO73znlhNbBas4=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3248/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix congestion control permissiveness (#3248)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dde047ee90b5_10703fa0ab6cd9603668b4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:07:13 -0000

If there are MUSTs we believe are important from 8085 and apply to QUIC and are not already MUSTs in other portions of the QUIC specs, I'd suggest we move those explicitly into this document and then either non-normatively reference 8085 or use a SHOULD for the rest of the document?

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