IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

mirjak <notifications@github.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 09:18 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 785923A1179 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 02:18:40 -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 0cMlgKhKjrgf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 02:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E7DB3A1178 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 02:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E5A340600 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 02:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598865518; bh=KD5eXizGQmZ6HwkCVh8thX6QPMlXwpDFaaZg4QvFu5g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZmERjHGU9oeEiLQVviGZKH8WM7w61sn2l2v3RupgD8DXqQ4nFuZlzlNgt0yFgYrNf CNXIftiUYlYftWtFqnkCDQ+o2tV5oyBokWpucOyhv5AVNgfV1MZBT4WVJcp+mFSGJG KpSG1QpuR/bCGaYJdZYWO6Rt3dMBhDfmmbgXLeEY=
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 02:18:38 -0700
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZ6S2UMUMYXDAQVMDN5LCQW5EVBNHHCPFZD6A@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/478450158@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_5f4cc06e76fac_26231964129340"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mirjak
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/O4a3ng0IzHde2iLH6FuDlzeI5BQ>
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 09:18:40 -0000

@mirjak 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

Why was this changed to a MUST? I thought if there is "unless" condition, MUST is the right choice.

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-478450158

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email