Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Strengthen 2119 language around tokens. (#2124)

[janaiyengar <[e-mail]>]

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1610,7 +1610,7 @@ A resumption token SHOULD be constructed to be easily distinguishable from
 tokens that are sent in Retry packets as they are carried in the same field.
 
 If the client has a token received in a NEW_TOKEN frame on a previous connection
-to what it believes to be the same server, it can include that value in the
+to what it believes to be the same server, it SHOULD include that value in the

... or it dropped its store of tokens. SHOULD is useful in encouraging clients to do the performant thing -- use tokens unless they really can't.

> @@ -1627,7 +1627,7 @@ interface.  A client needs to start the connection process over if it migrates
 prior to completing the handshake.
 
 When a server receives an Initial packet with an address validation token, it
-SHOULD attempt to validate it, unless it has already completed address
+MUST attempt to validate it, unless it has already completed address

There's an "unless" clause that captures the cases where a server won't validate, AFAICT. I'm ok with MUST here.

Also, the "it" is ambiguous. I would change the sentence to ".... MUST attempt to validate the token"

-- 
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/2124#discussion_r241254940