IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Word-smithed version of Ted's resolution to #3842 from the mailing list (#3945)

Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 10:53 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 574513A122A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 03:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, 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: 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 6psH1BWbYRR7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 03:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 884ED3A1228 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 03:53:33 -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 CFC2534009E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 03:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598871212; bh=jb5aCDty3WKDjjGCEq3056F3cdjCZ6f+GNtjZYEF81Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=HhoeVpN1IYdyHYahcXY+va4/3V5paaUA3rs0kvhN1/EVXoDwjIrvNtxSttjQTewm7 lcwHuaJU6QDLQUOholOg8SywhSUO4e8itu7Kma3QD8M+N4YoKSXcTTeMZ5kV4w/uNb IbrovXjVGQC7c91+UWtYryDFzad6iuI24IfyQUiY=
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 03:53:32 -0700
From: Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6HD3SURGZV3J6BU455LC32ZEVBNHHCPFZD6A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945/review/478508397@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Word-smithed version of Ted's resolution to #3842 from the mailing list (#3945)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4cd6acbf43f_339819642963f9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: larseggert
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/q3CX4zuT6hqlSCta8eR63Av1ie8>
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: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:53:41 -0000

@larseggert commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2432,17 +2432,18 @@ The capacity available on the new path might not be the same as the old path.
 Packets sent on the old path MUST NOT contribute to congestion control or RTT
 estimation for the new path.
 
-On confirming a peer's ownership of its new address, an endpoint MUST
+On confirming a peer's ownership of its new address, an endpoint SHOULD

It was changed to SHOULD because we added the "unless" clause. This is exactly what a SHOULD is for?

-- 
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/3945#discussion_r480048014

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email