Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix congestion control permissiveness (#3248)

Gorry Fairhurst <> Wed, 27 November 2019 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5217812080A for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:32:05 -0800 (PST)
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 KOXsmOo6DQnE for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10E9A1207FE for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:32:03 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574843523; bh=67FBxplZhoJnwbvm5Q1m7WkCVH7c65lIVpGSzvK5p7g=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yZUPuepJwFPr4C+1JRJNdw0w9EVH2zv8kMDiF77mcwj9HiuN+Rj6I3Uk3xHzeicFh ex4mnwCLxOrd1vzvVbaKcLJdHG4wAD/+GrhHcgj1j2v8HNQOLtsYsz8++yzx/yNnJG WRE1QtCdn0DCCZKXMujJmF19dlSvmVA6B7KNAQIw=
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3248/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix congestion control permissiveness (#3248)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dde34834ce9b_55ea3fc5baacd964750081"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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, 27 Nov 2019 08:32:05 -0000

I'd always believed the intent was for the design for QUIC to fall within the scope of BCP145, which provides the check-list of SHOULD and MUST requirements for UDP-based protocol mechanisms.

Moving blocks of requirements language and surrounding context that relate to QUIC from BCP145, seems like creating a lot of work, with very little positive outcomes. Citing this as normative to an implementation seems like it avoids much of this, and also much reduces the need for detailed checking in last call.

Is there a reason to "move" to the QUIC document itself?  

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