Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Path Migration makes unjustified assumptions about a new path. (#2909)

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

1) 
SHOULD NOT -> MUST NOT
Suggestion: "New paths have new congestion control contexts, implementations can reset the existing congestion control context."

2) 
In keeping with the first resolution, it's a new CC, and whether a new CC is created or the existing one is reset is an implementation decision.

3) 
Instead of saying it's the same path, say that the path parameters(RTT and CC state) are likely to be similar.

4) 
This is resolved with the resolution to 1, we can decide where the implementation note should live.

5) (In Section 9.4 of transport)
This is really "A path can be validated, but not switched to immediately, particularly in the presence of a potential attack.  When you switch, you need to use a new(or reset) congestion controller."


-- 
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/2909#issuecomment-513574181