Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packets on one path must not adjust values for a different path (#3139)

mirjak <> Fri, 25 October 2019 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A05120273 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 01:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 LzH7dkHfZ90x for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 01:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AE4B1208CA for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 01:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA183660916 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 01:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571992999; bh=1pyZ6K7uEyyW+nJxzROqWDgkjIYvMDE34OotnWnPBjg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ypcGoBeGBZWi8RQv3AVyZ2MwkbXHUmi0v9vmsQj1OhvMKWRKJVZXja1EyVAmcjupY Vv69PlYUeGsOvOLgXYZhpFFKDtP/7jW2ZxJ18XD2fvPoZoqeI8AGWIcTf867Oy59QW SSRSplhFVwZ9Qif+hAvZAzmPf1YVoMH5ACEdWSmw=
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 01:43:19 -0700
From: mirjak <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3139/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packets on one path must not adjust values for a different path (#3139)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db2b5a7abfaf_7c463fd31becd96047436"; 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
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:43:24 -0000

mirjak commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ more likely to indicate an intentional migration rather than an attack.
 ## Loss Detection and Congestion Control {#migration-cc}
 The capacity available on the new path might not be the same as the old path.
-Packets sent on the old path SHOULD NOT contribute to congestion control or RTT
+Packets sent on the old path MUST NOT contribute to congestion control or RTT
 estimation for the new path.

Yes, good question. So I think it is correct that it is important to make sure that when you migrate you need to use a new cc context and not just keep using the old one. But I guess this was a SHOULD because using the old estimate as the new initial could make sense e.g. if you have very small RTTs or only a few ms. On the other hand, as Ian said, you should get a new sample with the validation anyway and therefore it should not have an impact. Do we maybe need more text to actually explain that?

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