Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Description of the use of Preferred Address is unclear (#3353)

ianswett <> Thu, 16 January 2020 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C24F1200B1 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:53:19 -0800 (PST)
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 UFmOZQ4oYJ90 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B44F12004A for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:53:17 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579215197; bh=89nnUOHRdXaOKsdnvo0jnBl2B4nqo5/HSVT4diEJOGo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=u2lYRAqnrcUHIvg5JMGRlBwSHyQWozU/UNHKFwAu9x3o5e5ltiglgj6D1QDZw+zaK rqIS4a49Mfx3PgZJZDO0ookaO6/978dR2AW7ket5d7YPfzD+YTgc9fS9t0Dh+ZF5J8 DzCpTy3tMqVk6tiss6oNjJAk09Z4MQNul7l7Zhs4=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3353/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Description of the use of Preferred Address is unclear (#3353)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e20e95d3b234_1c033f8d65ccd9681145dd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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, 16 Jan 2020 22:53:20 -0000

This text precedes a clear definition of confirmed, so I strongly agree with your first suggested clarification.

I can imagine cases when the CID should be based on the path, so I'm less clear on the correct behavior for the second point.  By definition, if the CID provided in the transport param has been retired it should not be used to initiate path validation.  But I'm unclear if the preferred behavior is don't migrate if you haven't already initiated migration or to use one of the newer CIDs.

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