Closed mirjak closed 2 months ago
Also from PR #292:
See comments above. In my mind, using the path ID in the nonce pretty much mandates unique path ID. Something like a monotonously increasing number.
+1 from @michael-eriksson @Yanmei-Liu @qdeconinck
Sounds like we all agree on this resolution but this might need some clarification in the draft.
Not that I have a strong opinion, but I do wonder if we need the concept of issuing and retiring new path IDs at all; see https://github.com/quicwg/multipath/issues/321.
In case of CIDs, we need to have the mechanism of issuing new CIDs, because the path migration can happy many nany times.
But path IDs are not exposed to the path, so endpoints can reuse them. It might sound counterintuitive to reuse an old path ID when intentionally creating a new path. But the catch is that the required behavior of intentionally migrating to a different path is going to be identical to involuntary migration (i.e., NAT rebinding) that we have to handle.
Considering that, to me it seems like an unnecessary complexity to have a different mechanism to handle intentional migration.
Closing this issue now. Please continue discussion in #321
From PR #292:
@huitema huitema on Nov 20, 2023
@kazuho kazuho on Nov 21, 2023
@marten-seemann marten-seemann on Nov 21, 2023
@Yanmei-Liu Yanmei-Liu on Nov 21, 2023
@kazuho kazuho on Nov 21, 2023
@kazuho kazuho on Nov 21, 2023
@marten-seemann marten-seemann on Nov 21, 2023
@kazuho kazuho on Nov 21, 2023
@Yanmei-Liu Yanmei-Liu on Nov 21, 2023
@kazuho kazuho on Nov 21, 2023
@Yanmei-Liu Yanmei-Liu on Nov 21, 2023
@mirjak mirjak on Nov 21, 2023
@michael-eriksson michael-eriksson on Nov 23, 2023
@michael-eriksson michael-eriksson on Nov 23, 2023
@huitema huitema on Nov 26, 2023