Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't store or retransmit PATH_RESPONSE frames, avoid buffering (#2729)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1721,7 +1721,12 @@ 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.
+echoing the data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame,
+unless it has PATH_RESPONSE frames buffered for the same destination connection
+ID and wishes to limit memory consumption.
+
+An endpoint MUST NOT store or retransmit a PATH_RESPONSE frame, as a new
+PATH_CHALLENGE frame will be sent if another PATH_RESPONSE frame is needed.
 

Do we have precedent for a fixed number of something allowed in a packet?  We've previously said multiple ACKs isn't best practice, but it's not prohibited.  This feels similar -- adding a new type of prohibition for something not actively harmful seems excessive.  Simply don't require them to be processed, and let implementations choose.

-- 
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/2729#discussion_r292581950