michael-eriksson

Yes. A side note: I don't really see the point of `MP_PROTOCOL_VIOLATION`; why is RFC 9000's `PROTOCOL_VIOLATION` not good enough?

FWIW, I am convinced that paths initiated from different endpoints should use separate sets of path IDs -- that is a trivial way to avoid designing and implementing (and debugging)...

Indirectly yes, since packets can be reordered and the receiver can't tell the difference. The receiver should obviously ignore the frame like any other stale frame.

As proposed in #180, path setup should be really explicit and not just some overloaded semantics of the `PATH_CHALLENGE` frame. A `PATH_SETUP` frame can't be misunderstood and would include all...

> > Actually congestion control and loss recovery is per packet space which is identified by the CID. > > Is that so? > > I have been under the...

Why would the peer be interested in and need to know the reason that the path is abandoned? There is no reason/"error" signaled when new paths are set up. The...

If the PATH_ABANDON `Error Code` field remains, the error codes should definitely be in another number space than the QUIC transport error codes, The two use cases are semantically very...