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

ianswett <> Thu, 24 October 2019 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B807120131 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 qsqv-jRfTPRU for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 094F6120119 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2CE6E119C for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571923337; bh=oLI0L9K7fGSssP07YTaePENOhrfdgcqXn6CgSTmzgnU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gRn04eOwH0fn0hiQFP/5TAGDS2rewbuwPQT1+a3B9iHREFKRvTWlSe2NDpt2xAiXc AauBxwN0WxZtW9cCEeE91gRDuEif30rrgpNvoIaPYNR3SMJt2AWrWFkc0jgdhZvlo1 FuxmMMfzvCbKhZr6Vwgo/wbAl6aseYONY18G9yJE=
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:22:17 -0700
From: ianswett <>
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_5db1a5891f44d_542d3fa1b9ccd964228777"; 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, 24 Oct 2019 13:22:20 -0000

ianswett 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.

That's a fair point.  In practice, it's more likely the new path is similar to the old path RTT than it is to a default like 1 second, given these are the same two endpoints.

But I'm not sure that optimization is worth considering.  If you're validating the new path before migrating, which is probably the typical case, you expect to get an RTT sample in 1 round trip anyway.

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