mirjak
mirjak
Even if we want to go for even/odd split, why do we have to already specify this now? If we anyway want to specify server-initiated path in an extension with...
To summarize the options: 1) if we want to allow server initiated paths: 1a) allow multiple paths with the same 4-tuple but clarify carefully when it is a migration event...
Ah sorry, I confused myself. The problem is not when you open the same 5-tuple with different paths ID but when you open different 5-tuples with the same path ID....
To complete the discussion: If both ends open the same 4-tuple path with different path IDs at the same time, this is currently also not really allowed by the specific...
Closing this issue as nobody objected during the consensus call on the list.
Current the draft says: > Also, the Path Identifier for the connection ID specified in the "preferred address" transport parameter is 0. Use of the "preferred address" is considered as...
Closing as not applicable anymore with the explicit path ID approach.
I address the sentence is section 4.4 as part of PR #334. I think the rest might be obsolete with the explicit Path ID merge?
Closing as PR #334 was merged
Before I close this issue: The text says: > the Path ID is an integer between 0 and 2^32 - 1 (inclusive). Do we need normative language here? Also do...