Thanks - that addresses my comments. Colin On 16 Jun 2025, at 14:25, Thomas Fossati wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 02:02:06PM +0100, Colin Perkins wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 13 Jun 2025, at 14:34, Thomas Fossati wrote: >>> The current algorithm is not designed to handle nested rebindings. >>> If this occurs (hopefully rarely), the path_response message is >>> dropped, and path validation eventually times out. The address is >>> not updated, and a new path validation will be triggered when new >>> data is received. >> >> I’d also expect this to be an uncommon occurrence, so there’s likely >> to need to optimise the behaviour further. It might be helpful to >> include the above explanation though, just to be clear that the >> protocol doesn’t fail in that case? > > Makes sense. > > See https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-rrc/pull/94/commits/bc4de703631a222 > > cheers, thanks again! -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
