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

MikkelFJ <> Thu, 24 October 2019 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D859F12010C for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 O_5BZrI1wny5 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 569D2120105 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39CD2C121D for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571921322; bh=DZg+x6jrD0jMlsjsoG8Uq3rGTr4PhUFRDYkJF8lvoO4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=blXwh9Z/cyCUBQFizljMvvvNTispb7qaTWNMVEE3BQ6yejJp3PwfIotGIB6NBkG+U 5FIATq/KvI291cpxWTsFOyFqeWNqFCAvw/y0DVErlKvHsrDGQ3ak4hG/u9RpB7iqaA mIDMVGwVVyAGY6nPO65Oi9pcsJ7AeOT7kZ7Ya9AQ=
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:48:42 -0700
From: MikkelFJ <>
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_5db19daa93ebc_65f83f9661ecd95c2126e9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:48:45 -0000

mikkelfj 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.

What about the initial RTT estimate on the new path?

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