mirjak

Further the text says the following: > When there is not enough unused Path Identifiers, endpoints SHOULD > send MAX_PATHS frame to inform the peer that new Path Identifiers are...

Continue discussion in #338

No one number space but you only compare to the number that you previously received for the same CID. E.g. you received SEQ=1 CID=1 SEQ=2 CID=2 SEQ=4 CID=1 SEQ=3 CID=2...

I think this issue is still true but you use now one sequence number space for all path IDs (instead of CIDs). I guess we could also define a separate...

I believe in the current version of the draft (-09) the behaviour is clearly specified: ``` The sequence number space is shared with the PATH_AVAILABLE frame and the sequence number...

Decision at IETF-120 was to not change the sequence number space (and keep the per-path space). However, we could provide guidance that it would still be possible to implement a...

Ups... the assumption during the discussion at IETF-120 was the current sequence number space is per path. However, it is not... sorry for mixing this up. But then it sounded...

I don't think I understand you comment. Can you propose text?

This is obsolete if we merge PR #315. We wait until this PR is merged before closing.

#315 merged