Magnus Westerlund
Magnus Westerlund
Another example where the spec is a bit confused on if a path is unidirectional or not. Section 4.4: "The endhost can use all the paths in the "Active" state,...
@huitema maybe the action here is to clarify that this paragraph talks about the long term address validation token that can be used for future connections. For such tokens, maybe...
Clarify refragmenting of stream data when MTU is different and retransmission happens on other path.
I think it would be good to add some text in the specification that sender MAY do this and receiver MUST be able to accept refragmentation done in retransmissions.
Clarify refragmenting of stream data when MTU is different and retransmission happens on other path.
I don't think it is different. It is just more likely to occur. In RFC 9000 an MTU change is most likely to occur due to a connection migration event....
I will note that -10 still are unclear in regards to the sequence number. I understand that implementation wise one is expected to record the sequence number set the status...
Yes, I can create an PR.
To my understanding is that how it is currently specified is that each endpoint need to close the path in the direction towards itself by first sending the path_abandon then...
I would suggest that we ensure that we have when it comes to the path close scenarion, that one says first stop sending, i.e. path_abandon. Then a path_close that retires...
I don't understand how this happens I think you may have to make event diagram to explain how one would draw the wrong conlcusion. To my understanding you are talking...
> I think we should say something like "An endpoint MUST NOT reuse a path ID when sending from more than one local address". Maybe saying this is part of...