IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Word-smithed version of Ted's resolution to #3842 from the mailing list (#3945)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 19:28 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 88FF03A1903 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 4g391AUGna42 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E51B3A1900 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-fa7043e.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fa7043e.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.109.45]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B1F5E0574 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598902111; bh=sxtSGWrIkkN/rPpiIQu0SSqbJ8aKxEkufaz7Lqdrvjs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=auS/fqCWFpjhN/+celNWRysfa4uj2IB4XwU+jckAA8KbzEa5FwbO74Aw/5Mc+oRoz 4bf/xziIXnmbQuWzbUYml7+owFiE8egUY9To2c0BdH1+M9vlup/reyCglX2P0aasrI SV8ZZdjACwHErEQ//3n0EELvEEa3klDy4hU/8xio=
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:28:31 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4IVTBVXG5QNKP6MLV5LEYF7EVBNHHCPFZD6A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945/review/478892907@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Word-smithed version of Ted's resolution to #3842 from the mailing list (#3945)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4d4f5f896c9_57601964605737"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/ShBEBxVcO_4CNiZlTSlOZMyHk5A>
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: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:28:34 -0000

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2432,17 +2432,18 @@ The capacity available on the new path might not be the same as the old path.
 Packets sent on the old path MUST NOT contribute to congestion control or RTT
 estimation for the new path.
 
-On confirming a peer's ownership of its new address, an endpoint MUST
+On confirming a peer's ownership of its new address, an endpoint SHOULD

We've used "MUST ... unless" in the document to carve out specific exceptions. RFC 2119 says that violating a SHOULD is allowed if the implementer knows what they're doing. "MUST ... unless" is more prescriptive -- it says that the implementer can ignore the MUST only under the exceptional condition.

In this instance, I agree with @mirjak that "MUST ... unless" is the intent.

-- 
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/3945#discussion_r480348791

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email