Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Probing packet (#1253)

From: janaiyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:19:09 +0000 (UTC)

Define probing/non-probing packet and frames.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1253

-- Commit Summary --

  * probing packet

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (10)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1253.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1253.diff

-- 
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/1253

---

From: janaiyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:20:10 +0000 (UTC)

@janaiyengar pushed 1 commit.

1bfd668  could

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1253/files/a936d40d707721331d8b1e7bb210761090462337..1bfd66837c6653371136aa3d967ebb2e2532637a

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:33:34 -0700

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1589,9 +1589,13 @@ Receiving a PATH_CHALLENGE frame from a peer indicates that the peer is probing
 for reachability on a path. An endpoint sends a PATH_RESPONSE in response as per
 {{migrate-validate}}.
 
-PATH_CHALLENGE, PATH_RESPONSE, and PADDING frames are "probing" frames. Until an
-endpoint receives packets containing other frames from a given peer address, it
-MUST NOT send other types of frames to that address.
+PATH_CHALLENGE, PATH_RESPONSE, and PADDING frames are "probing frames", and all
+other frames are "non-probing frames".  A packet containing only probing frames
+is a "probing packet", and a packet containing any other frame is a "non-probing
+packet".
+
+An endpoint MUST NOT send non-probing frames to a peer address until it receives

Is this statement true?  What about NAT rebinds?

-- 
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/1253#pullrequestreview-107476279

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:22:07 -0700

MikeBishop approved this pull request.

Good on the targeted fix, but let's get a drive-by fix to the adjacent text while we're here.

-- 
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/1253#pullrequestreview-107489117

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:23:00 +0000 (UTC)

If this statement is strictly followed, no one ever migrates because they're waiting for the other side to do so.  (At which the other side has violated a MUST, and you really ought to kill the connection to that naughty endpoint!)

For both client and server migration, this actually points in the same direction, so let's accept the non-generic here:  "A server MUST NOT send non-probing packets to a client address until it receives a non-probing packet from that address."

-- 
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/1253#pullrequestreview-107489241

---

From: janaiyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:29:56 +0000 (UTC)

efb8984  server, not endpoint

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1253/files/1bfd66837c6653371136aa3d967ebb2e2532637a..efb89843341248f7b54a637845d306a3b78037e8

---

From: janaiyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:31:41 -0700

Merged #1253.

-- 
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/1253#event-1544373939