Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe PMTU probing that includes source connection ID for routing … (#2402)

Mike Bishop <> Fri, 15 February 2019 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A71130DD3 for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:55:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 yLpcODcMHs-M for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83AD312F1A2 for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:55:00 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1550256900; bh=SOanLTzDgTq6bU/SrVcCTJxkRAxcF0zQVufBV1mlqhU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WxHyGEv7HH/ub1GtFRxlqOBBwq1aNwpuQM945N1vMJuPgB2P/zeeBgmjFsH+HLoLJ LoVBKNRg1GQMvfmtq0EI0dcGCTTjlWbukss14PmoZYN3yrY6a3XvQ69EyJ+lhwSKpC YICTOM+yPtW/8NCSrtUxNmR0PVi/bRpU4eYwIWYM=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2402/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe PMTU probing that includes source connection ID for routing … (#2402)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c670b04ca21a_7ab53fee1a6d45b488579"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 18:55:06 -0000

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2670,9 +2670,10 @@ complete.  Though the values of some fields in the packet header might be
 redundant, no fields are omitted.  The receiver of coalesced QUIC packets MUST
 individually process each QUIC packet and separately acknowledge them, as if
 they were received as the payload of different UDP datagrams.  For example, if
-decryption fails (because the keys are not available or any other reason), the
-the receiver MAY either discard or buffer the packet for later processing and
-MUST attempt to process the remaining packets.
+decryption fails (because the keys are not available, the UDP datagram is a PMTU
+probe (see {{pmtu-probes-src-cid}}), or any other reason), the the receiver MAY

The idea behind your suggested change reads better, yes.  The specific suggested change has other issues that I assume are caused in part by other lines having changed:

> Receivers MUST be able to probe (...), or any other reason), the the receiver MAY process coalesced packets.

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