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

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> -valid for the new path.  For instance, an endpoint might infer that a change in
-only the client's port number is indicative of a NAT rebinding, meaning that the
-new path is likely to have similar bandwidth and round-trip time. However, this
-determination will be imperfect.  If the determination is incorrect, the
-congestion controller and the RTT estimator are expected to adapt to the new
-path.  Generally, implementations are advised to be cautious when using previous
-values on a new path.
+unless the only change is the other endpoint's port number.  Because
+port-only changes are commonly the result of NAT rebinding or other middlebox
+activity, the endpoint MAY instead retain its congestion control state and
+round-trip estimate in those cases instead of reverting to initial values.
+In cases where congestion control state
+retained from an old path is used on a new path with substantially different
+characteristics, a sender may transmit too aggressively until the congestion
+controller and the RTT estimator have adapted. Generally, implementations are
+advised to be cautious when using previous values on a new path.

This is not a recommendation. The advise there seems appropriate to me; is there specific other advise that is needed?

-- 
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_r472491764