Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] disable_active_migration with SPA (#3765)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

> The issue is telling the client that it should avoid changing the source address/network attachment (active client migration) during a connection while still allowing for SPA (destination address change). Is that what you agree with?

I understand that that is the issue that you are discussing alongside disabling migration after the client moves to the preferred address. I think we agree at least that they are "technically" orthogonal issues.

> Before the change in `disable_active_migration` semantics, `disable_active_migration` was such a signal. Now, there is not one.

Thanks. I now understand your view, but I wonder if that has ever been the intent of the text. The counterexample is that we have intentionally allowed servers to provide a preferred address using a different address family than the original address. Wouldn't it be more natural to assume that the existing text regarding a MUST NOT for changing the client address (when the disable_active_migration TP was used) was written under the assumption that server_preferred address was not used in such case?

-- 
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/issues/3765#issuecomment-657925719