IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 21:49 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 85D033A0745 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.552 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_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 BYBnj7W3Vqxg for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-15.smtp.github.com (out-15.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 372293A0657 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.110.15]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9254326184C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594244959; bh=29ECSkKSnKX7hDjABGkoI5UMysbmDEcZ/SOpK2eLFM0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=QkCMPHsBShhG22eGF35Pe01nYBVMgnQoXw+/3Vga2s6Nq/FfdGBytmCNrHjAShSKi JUksvd1zTzWf2FIQRwAjZ30TOzlfCPkZO7IVN7ope7+yEoCR5bu8tJbSmzAyK7Qnzt BCT6s4eAfxAqodkzNr1IxhcpxavmsGcSDJqfGiAY=
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 14:49:19 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4LH36CWPULQLD2BMN5CIQF7EVBNHHCN2JJGQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842/655775834@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_5f063f5f46a7d_5033fb02fccd96c13868b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/PTEHWy6w9txQUlkvtB4aotqaQj8>
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: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 21:49:22 -0000

I'm not sure I have a better suggestion than the existing text for @ekr concern, but I noticed a different small possible issue.

The process of validating the path is very likely to give you a RTT measurement for the path, so it might be worth tweaking the MUST to say "MUST ... and discard any round trip estimates associated with the old path" or just "MUST not use round trip time measurements from the old path on the new one."?  One could keep the estimates for the old path, as we've discussed, so I think saying you must reset or discard the information is a bit strong.

-- 
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-655775834

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