IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 12:48 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 17DFD3A130F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:48:16 -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 4RmU0nwpxl07 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD4CA3A130E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:48:14 -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 0078B520E34 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598878094; bh=dvRZCAXfy5PSTrFlwBJ3q+0VqVDlpiVSxpiTQckqUA8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=y1Oue0As1Ei3oUTuv/Q+AjQ0isGmzH23wf0rqYKRe4+3p8A05iUUyiDMVIUHJjDcW LxGbE2wj/72uscmQ+T1W1rpONEPJkEuam2ik0Ec/l7//eeW+rHtlJEu89WiKPdJ4jT ZwsFk68iLlZnsEgVm9NmAM1Q2FzviEmNMkvjPE9Q=
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 05:48:13 -0700
From: Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZ5L54PJRHSWO5EUJV5LDJI3EVBNHHCPFZD6A@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/478583177@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_5f4cf18de5025_5b0d1964378338"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: larseggert
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/JLHY7HQ8RfrlfSmesvywo6r2gIc>
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 12:48:16 -0000

@larseggert 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

I was under the impression that a MUST with an exception was a SHOULD, per 2119. I have no problems if that understanding is wrong, although a MUST...unless just feels odd. What do others think?

-- 
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_r480106563

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email