IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 01:10 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 A1DC23A0AE7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:10:51 -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 mh_iDQKENCl1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 526143A0ADB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-d93c4b6.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d93c4b6.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.47]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20B58C0A3D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594257049; bh=t4TYQ7b8jGFN5vkeS9iX9eBK2hK8ZPoTvmsx54Azkjg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EJCwqjcjDcdOpHyIIfVux0KY6rbpu8BwL20l6wgQi5tMZT/g80tOyk4ReU+7S56UK k/jhRMTE16KW6l+rmJBLzeNVF2WHTPzSVuh5jeY+4EGa/oDjJzBas8QLKJr7ntjCHJ HAtuZde3kg56UkikG6h/BoZ3tMqIUmR82iJ36IwY=
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 18:10:49 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZTA3BLUNMH2VAEDQN5CJHZTEVBNHHCN2JJGQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842/655836679@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f066e9991fc5_2bf63fed66ecd9642427c6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/MxlEmMHPlNHfzc4rt0r4VXTzgsE>
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: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 01:10:52 -0000

This isn't meant to be a disservice to the implementer -- to an unaware implementer, the requirement is clear: reset the RTT and the congestion controller. This is meant to provide an escape hatch for those experimenting or for those who have other sources of information. For example, it might be possible that address changes within a /24 are also NAT rebinding (and there's evidence of this), so we want to allow endpoints to use this knowledge, but we don't want to specify that behavior.

I think a "MUST ... unless" captures that.

-- 
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/3842#issuecomment-655836679

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status