[quicwg/base-drafts] Handling of Retire Prior To field (#3046)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

At the moment, [section 5.1.2](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#rfc.section.5.1.2) states, quote: _Upon receipt, the peer SHOULD retire the corresponding connection IDs and send the corresponding RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames in a timely manner. Failing to do so can cause packets to be delayed, lost, or cause the original endpoint to send a stateless reset in response to a connection ID it can no longer route correctly._

As the text uses "SHOULD" rather than a "MUST", some view it as an optional requirement to switch to using a new connection ID in such a situation. Others think that it is a mandatory requirement for an endpoint to switch to a new connection ID.

If we are to consider the latter behavior to be the case, I think the text should better be changed to "**MUST** retire the corresponding connection IDs and send the corresponding RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames in a timely manner".

-- 
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/3046