Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many probed paths should a server remember? (#3489)

MikkelFJ <> Thu, 12 March 2020 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7FD3A09AB for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 eY2WIvV5eLi0 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CB0F3A09AC for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638C4E005E for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1584047988; bh=OwuBHh79HncuOM3G+fjZ8fsDVcUuaa5Yo4oMXIZRIxU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PNa46XAkPH8EQ79g1vTObls+DaVphz0gQu37N7necrXBSNnKZWgm6uxT+wsYa0385 1EeZyLLHEX/jaw/Lavdp2WEMPDrDd2cfQOH81PUkY7HFjRMoJiuLkbq9kdQLbnDdyP qYRoka8ahT/XMY3t9gLi/lQ+LXcJgNMtMEk+13Gw=
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:19:48 -0700
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3489/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many probed paths should a server remember? (#3489)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e6aa774502b5_2d613f93f24cd96485955"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 21:19:51 -0000

BTW: a related migration issue: a client might have to track separate root certificates for separate paths because one path could be on a corporate WLAN with substituted root certificates for traffic monitoring while the other path happens over 4G or 5G. This is probably not something that can be supported on a single connection neither in QUIC v1 or v2, but it is actually a concern in a real use case I'm aware of.

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