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

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3139#discussion_r338568687