Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] CID change still required in response to migration? (#2778)

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 03 July 2019 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA53120135 for <>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 23:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
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 n7K9RqV7_E6A for <>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 23:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4B041200B2 for <>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 23:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 23:39:19 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1562135959; bh=4EbtFofA1juDSRV4GnRTK/yudoU2kL9M2S1ffSjmKiY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aepNjNVuHKZj3192/y65EnLY3Dqhjq6Mgj3gLd3kOo0lecgyHRApVy/jQghe4DuxY Jpij+Tmpt7OZFOZ6AMp1cGbrNvwaLRggEdCyzVF8J4KOGiZZznigZpSYGZXUxdhNR3 cONPVKhq0loEte3+xQAkHiFfOJ7sCODE5o56JTrQ=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2778/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] CID change still required in response to migration? (#2778)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d1c4d97ac70d_68043fc715ccd960340675"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 06:39:23 -0000

 @larseggert I like the way you categorize migration.

> Is it sufficient to clarify that for a direct migration, a CID change SHOULD happen, and for an indirect migration, it (generally) cannot, and that the peer must handle both?

Does that mean in practical sense that clients SHOULD change CID for direct migration, and that servers SHOULD respond to a CID change with a CID change?

Assuming that is what we are seeking, I think it might be a good idea to clarify using a non-RFC2199 term that is effectively what we recommend (I understand that we prefer talking about "endpoints").

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