Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] "don't delay" for PATH_RESPONSE (#4036)

Marten Seemann <> Thu, 20 August 2020 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB173A09E7 for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.483
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.483 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 RrmoBa10e3y6 for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21D373A09EA for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB15520050 for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1597912472; bh=/cUWq1Q8d6OBGcy+Ig66j7s89i47ojgBu5a5e+LsrWE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LtSDkWO0R1vIv9APNxJ7gpr6JVRVklACTZKZH2uxTVMPlNLyaYbG76E6SjOZVf748 fSEDshiLv/T19kALlZoY3FsSqK7kfhqcpXhrygFXRqtvlXhOwT/CeVa+EwuObqKmiz 2yI/1L5MmheV9cgC3RPH7PoqjjddfKqcO+RAKqTo=
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:32 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4036/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] "don't delay" for PATH_RESPONSE (#4036)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3e35985b4f7_792b1964521429"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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, 20 Aug 2020 08:34:34 -0000

@marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2174,8 +2174,10 @@ it can associate the peer's response with the corresponding PATH_CHALLENGE.
 ## Path Validation Responses
-On receiving a PATH_CHALLENGE frame, an endpoint MUST respond immediately by
-echoing the data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame.
+On receiving a PATH_CHALLENGE frame, an endpoint MUST respond by echoing the
+data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame.  An
+endpoint MUST NOT delay transmission of a packet containing a PATH_RESPONSE
+frame unless constrained by congestion control.

Can you actually be constrained by congestion control on a new path?

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