Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on a different path than PATH_CHALLENGE? (#4064)

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 02 September 2020 01:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC8C3A0980 for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 8QF8KQUnuNyD for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:20:34 -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 864A53A097F for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CE4902630 for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1599009633; bh=G+I692hUPOdCwuNP0PwesaCAdHjleFmBGpOpAB71+cI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=mGWMi6HSiLpeia0WeoAXX8M8I80SHAxnoX3kd9hj3YEtAO8VKA537trSOHDSY1wRE cJT+v3HhTpIpFl8rQXuDr4kgmKW8zyNkptqF+pjBZ9HHr7sL8Ie2UT2+tMTVaVHkS+ 4kaeAPZg4GQMND3hGK06NF970RXi/NeaIbZejQUc=
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 18:20:33 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4064/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can PATH_RESPONSE be sent on a different path than PATH_CHALLENGE? (#4064)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4ef361b1af3_39e196414826b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 01:20:36 -0000

So I thought we were really crisp about this, but we were not.

PATH_RESPONSE does not need to follow the path on which PATH_CHALLENGE was received.  We're clear about this when it comes to preferred address handling, but there is some vestigial text that contradicts this.  That should be fixed.

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