IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Thu, 20 August 2020 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB173A09E7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.483
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RrmoBa10e3y6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21D373A09EA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-6349a71.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-6349a71.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.18.20]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB15520050 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZEOMY7S6QNFGBBUO55JILJREVBNHHCRKSDGE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4036/review/471378971@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4036@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4036@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/i8BG1bVHmrvrPrdy7WrOFNmUZMg>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4036#pullrequestreview-471378971

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email