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

[mirjak <[e-mail]>]

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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3139#discussion_r338945759