Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] End-to-Path Close Signal (#602)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 04:24:39 +0000 (UTC)

Just to make this distinction, which I think is important:

The signal that the path needs is a signal that the endpoints no longer intend to use the path.  Connection termination (in any form) is only one reason that the path might stop being used, but with migration termination is not comprehensive.

You might reasonably argue that migration is often learned of after the fact (especially with user-mode implementations).  That would suggest that covering the various termination events with an explicit signal is all that is possible and that is therefore adequate.  That said, I'm not sure that this is universally true when it comes to endpoints with multi-interface-aware implementations and make-before-break interface management.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/602#issuecomment-322097301