Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Connection ID DT output (#1742)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

One item to note is that we've adopted EKR's suggestion to use IP:port (collectively "address" as in the migration section) changes instead of CID changes as the trigger to change your own CID.  Here's why:
  - If you switch CIDs without changing addresses they're already linked to any observers, so it doesn't matter whether the remote side changes.
  - If you switch addresses without changing CIDs, they're already linked to any observers, so it doesn't matter whether the remote side changes.
  - If you switch addresses and CIDs at the same time, you have an opportunity not to be linked.

The case we actually need to cover is ensuring that, if an endpoint changes address and CID at the same time, the peer absolutely does not respond with the old CID. Any rule that produces this is sufficient, even if it also produces some gratuitous changes along the way.

Part of what led to the changes in -13 is that switching on CID change makes it hard to avoid looping. Switching on endpoint address covers the scenario we need without requiring a fixed ordering of CIDs.

-- 
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/1742#issuecomment-420810463