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

Eric Kinnear <> Mon, 04 November 2019 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FF212008B for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 21:43:24 -0800 (PST)
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 aRXpIZCDgIDv for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 21:43:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6132120077 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 21:43:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E635A6E01E4 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572846201; bh=LG2SJcirgvxW3RSGv33E16kh5coHqgOxKZ8MvLzYHRI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=K+q9pdsZbugpbV+IqIpLO3mZj69wfqgyzLkiyaKecGOicQCggBIds/Z0DjGiRPmc1 jTZ1fRRGct8Cb4eGne2B3C235V5Px661QZYxfv25aOcBsALYemWMuDQ6Vtp/BGYhyj enelPDwvYU6/cL0FyZhxq6COp9QMFVIFAU+9v9mk=
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0800
From: Eric Kinnear <>
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_5dbfba79d6a58_25923fb2358cd96865881d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 05:43:25 -0000

erickinnear 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.

I'd tend to agree with Ian that it's probably not necessary to add text covering that -- you're doing the safest thing if you treat them as completely independent, and you're likely to have new data from the new path just from validation or within a few RTTs.

(That said, I'd be quite interested in the results of experiments in this area, and there's no enforcement here that prevents such experimentation.)

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