Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe PMTU probing that includes source connection ID for routing … (#2402)

Igor Lubashev <> Fri, 15 February 2019 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E808130FE2 for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:34:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 Dam6X4G1ocHv for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:34:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF35E126C7E for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:34:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:34:24 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1550252064; bh=WwRD70EKPSEcAN8YSRM4qFhBTbxb3FfgmNkMAxKl1b8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZzK2TAJR0IaTS8+pL9F3KpzHF1L9pKWWml10Y5QL6xXlHDI/EqgQQnYeASd36SOnN hat+ITVph1S68oYQsNEhaczAmhgihPcBzouRSRVvSejTgdbtdFbrhgxa3z5s5doZgX ny+mYVcC5g5JxAYXtFir3jz6Bmu31rTQa2HBdRas=
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2402/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe PMTU probing that includes source connection ID for routing … (#2402)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c66f82097217_52ac3fc45e0d45b4458e6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:34:27 -0000

igorlord commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2670,9 +2670,10 @@ complete.  Though the values of some fields in the packet header might be
 redundant, no fields are omitted.  The receiver of coalesced QUIC packets MUST
 individually process each QUIC packet and separately acknowledge them, as if
 they were received as the payload of different UDP datagrams.  For example, if
-decryption fails (because the keys are not available or any other reason), the
-the receiver MAY either discard or buffer the packet for later processing and
-MUST attempt to process the remaining packets.
+decryption fails (because the keys are not available, the UDP datagram is a PMTU
+probe (see {{pmtu-probes-src-cid}}), or any other reason), the the receiver MAY

@MikeBishop, I am trying to make sure there are no unanswered concerns left about this text.

I know you've approved the text they way it is.  So you you think it is ok as is (and we can Resolve this), or should we work on making a change similar to the one I've outlined above?  Or something else?

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