Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmation condition (#2881)

ianswett <> Sun, 21 July 2019 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE8B12008C for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 c1bjNPif2eN3 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 05:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A52FD12004E for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 05:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 05:17:01 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1563711421; bh=zwxWYQGG/1pSVqT1IvhoUYj/TKBgAAuwIO5C1OOIack=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ijCtVUofFOTVF2KVmH14M4wZ2wCNx4iaASbLnn0nWeW/vRk6XNb/DgR6pVsq4NGq0 yuugr/oHtva6tOmyMQIVYp37AjwQafg+L7IL7eLfHtCC2UitrWmOTa4ERKHLLBqo/r 7r3Kh56LKgAGdZs44CiWR2x9XFqqRAzAaAeWrR5o=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmation condition (#2881)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d3457bdd2f73_36023f81046cd968203835"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:17:04 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -629,6 +629,14 @@ MAY use alternate strategies for determining the content of probe packets,
 including sending new or retransmitted data based on the application's
+If the handshake is complete, but not confirmed (see Section 4.1.1 and Section

I think it might make sense to work this into the "Handshakes and New Paths" section above?

The way I'm now thinking of this is: It's the client's job to drive the handshake to confirmation, and here's what is necessary to ensure that occurs...  Does that make sense?

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