Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Better define reaction to various connection migration failures #1277

Closed
martinthomson opened this issue Apr 9, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Better define reaction to various connection migration failures #1277

martinthomson opened this issue Apr 9, 2018 · 2 comments
Assignees
@janaiyengar
Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.

Comments

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

martinthomson commented Apr 9, 2018 •
edited
Loading

In @ekr's review of the connection migration draft, he noted that "failure" is rather imprecise. Does receipt of a PATH_RESPONSE from the wrong address mean that the path is considered invalid, or do you treat that just like loss and keep sending PATH_CHALLENGE? This could be better defined.
@martinthomson martinthomson added design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. -transport labels Apr 9, 2018
@martinthomson martinthomson mentioned this issue Apr 9, 2018
Closed
@janaiyengar janaiyengar self-assigned this Jun 5, 2018
@janaiyengar janaiyengar added editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. and removed design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. labels Sep 17, 2018
@dtikhonov
Copy link
Member

This issue seems stale. Is it still relevant?

@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor

I think https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#name-failed-path-validation answers this. Let's close.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@janaiyengar janaiyengar

Labels
-transport editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@martinthomson @MikeBishop @dtikhonov @janaiyengar