Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST requirement on bursts smaller than IW is too restrictive (#3892)

Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com> Mon, 20 July 2020 12:24 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 A7AFA3A087D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Kmgp4v_4Z5QH for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B567F3A086B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038DA8C1ECE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595247884; bh=MVKLzVzT7mB0X/Mz3TuhcFMLzlGzaAPH9rolrtJVyLw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=xg+QJPvxJRbA/3jxz07u1Mb0M+v1LecG6NcKJzxE3Kgu6EFbaDXBiNWK+T8t4tzuD dzUar5sZsfBydJHuWiJwpyDRANurWcVW6R3AAv2ucTbyDGB7iGPUb3pMq6bSd+RAx2 QcTX0TNQp1nMgV4DVvcTVZviLZ69kX3Jo05fQJQk=
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:24:43 -0700
From: Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3CJ4CSPTY442C7EW55EFXAXEVBNHHCOEJKXU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3892/660994254@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3892@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3892@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST requirement on bursts smaller than IW is too restrictive (#3892)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f158d0be9e54_70cf3faea9ecd9602149df"; 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/yyzut8KuwLEfA4JHHbSjTkQ1gyo>
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, 20 Jul 2020 12:24:48 -0000

Also being discussed [on the mailing list](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/DYjeywiWYuWPF3iTX9_T3R3sI-s)

-- 
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/issues/3892#issuecomment-660994254