Re: Consensus call for Late-Stage documents, pre-IETF 108 edition

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:00 PM Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> The following issues have proposals for resolution, and discussion so far
> seems
> to support consensus to accept them. Therefore, we are starting a 1-week
> consensus call. If you object to a proposal, please do so on the issue or
> in response to this message (changing the Subject appropriately!). Absent
> any
> pushback, we'll direct the editors to incorporate proposals once the call
> concludes.
>
> See <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/projects/5> for the current
> state of
> issues in the Late Stage process, itself defined at
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>.
>
>
> * #3880: How long is a validated address good for?
>   The proposal is to lose with no action.
>
> * #3875: Persistent congestion threshold is unreliable during the early
> stages of a connection
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3889>
>
> * #3860: incorrect error code used for invalid RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3861>
>
> * #3845: What does "MUST reduce" mean?
>   The proposal is https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3864
>
> * #3842: Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes?
>   The proposal is to close with no action.
>

Assuming I understand this proposal, I object to this resolution. I do not
believe that the current text is appropriate.

As I said, I don't have a strong opinion about the outcome, but we
shouldn't just hint to people that they should ignore the port.

-Ekr