Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Wed, 29 April 2020 15:55 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 A9A473A00C9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 wZZSIu8R0bTR for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 902183A005B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-a27607f.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-a27607f.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.18.61]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC03FA06CD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588175739; bh=c11oPhF96vGpXabHi2C/DWSTUr695OxFEgQaRpu9wM0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pCVK5YV+fUug1Fm5hlmp7PrYPLitU3Scc+InKkseanDVwoGKEYlRPB5lvfPO93tuA VDQK6FIzxsoB7h8JMGC1K7mtavuAG+wY8VSyo9KCd4/8VfTOlmBb+mjAKMKM7JxUi1 LBQsX8JSjcd1s9Mq8UX49/4N2LrOZe2YZQf5RCCk=
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:55:39 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2NFUO5WMKCMA5FUD54WWCHXEVBNHHCFYX2PM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536/review/402793670@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ea9a37b9cb71_3ad13fc0b6ecd9641979656"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/WDAwurBj5kUliPBQvgXYxbYzF2w>
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:55:43 -0000

@MikeBishop approved this pull request.



> +* If servers can use other dedicated server IP addresses or ports than
+the one that the client is initiating connections to, they could use the
+preferred_address transport parameter to request that clients move
+connections to these dedicated addresses. Note that clients could
+choose not to use the preferred address.

Isn't the whole point of this section that the address/port initially used by the client _isn't_ dedicated to this particular server?  It seems like the entire "other than... connects to" phrase is unnecessary.

-- 
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/3536#pullrequestreview-402793670