Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] "don't delay" for PATH_RESPONSE (#4036)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:29:56 -0700

This is the maximal version of a clarification of this text.

Closes #4025.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4036

-- Commit Summary --

  * &quot;don&#39;t delay&quot; for PATH_RESPONSE

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (6)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4036.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4036.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/4036

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:29:06 -0700

WFM, and resolves the original NiT.

-- 
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/4036#issuecomment-677457065

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:34:32 -0700

@marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2174,8 +2174,10 @@ it can associate the peer's response with the corresponding PATH_CHALLENGE.
 
 ## Path Validation Responses
 
-On receiving a PATH_CHALLENGE frame, an endpoint MUST respond immediately by
-echoing the data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame.
+On receiving a PATH_CHALLENGE frame, an endpoint MUST respond by echoing the
+data contained in the PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a PATH_RESPONSE frame.  An
+endpoint MUST NOT delay transmission of a packet containing a PATH_RESPONSE
+frame unless constrained by congestion control.

Can you actually be constrained by congestion control on a new path?

-- 
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/4036#pullrequestreview-471378971

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:03:23 -0700

@ianswett approved this pull request.

This LG, but so did the old text.

 

You can use PATH_CHALLENGE on existing paths as well, in which case congestion control could be a constraint.

-- 
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/4036#pullrequestreview-471764746

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:53:20 -0700

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

 

It's true to say that any constraint is unlikely, but not impossible.

-- 
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/4036#discussion_r476015497

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:53:25 -0700

Merged #4036 into master.

-- 
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/4036#event-3687741435