Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] disable_active_migration with SPA (#3765)

[Igor Lubashev <[e-mail]>]

@ekinnear Thanks for a great discussion of the issue.  I agree, there are few problems that cannot be solved with a robust "happy eyeballs" implementation.

I'd say that if your client implements such "happy eyeballs" for every migration, establishing a new connection as well the migrating the original one, you do not need `disable_active_migration` in any of its forms.  I wonder what benefit `disable_active_migration`  can possibly offer for a robust "happy eyeballs" client like that.

But what are less sophisticated clients supposed to do?  I am thinking of clients that have only one connection to each host open at a time.

You say that you would prefer to finish downloading those 5% of the object from a slow server.  But what if that server knew that it would not serve any bytes to a client located in a different network (legally prohibited)?  Would you care to know about it before the migration?  How would that server let you know (either, ideally, before the migration or after the migration w/o forcing you to time out)?

P.S.
The current text says that after a receipt of `disable_active_migration`, the client MUST NOT migrate, but it does _not_ say that the server "will ignore your packets".  Instead, it says that the server may either drop packets or proceed with the path validation and allow the migration.

-- 
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/issues/3765#issuecomment-658432704