Yeah, seems suspicious. PATH_CHALLENGE frame is used to determine if a path is valid in the first place. It seems like the correct operation of a client can not possibly depend on lossless responses since, by its very nature, the client must expect that it might be sending packets on a path to the void.
There is no way for a client to distinguish between a invalid path and a server packet drop, so a server that randomly drops such frames seems externally indistinguishable from a “compliant” one. For that matter, you can even characterize that as a path to the server that is “temporarily invalid” which follows the letter of the spec.
The only problem that may exist here is if the spec actually demands such a undetectable, unenforceable, irrelevant requirement.
Comments
Yeah, seems suspicious. PATH_CHALLENGE frame is used to determine if a path is valid in the first place. It seems like the correct operation of a client can not possibly depend on lossless responses since, by its very nature, the client must expect that it might be sending packets on a path to the void.
There is no way for a client to distinguish between a invalid path and a server packet drop, so a server that randomly drops such frames seems externally indistinguishable from a “compliant” one. For that matter, you can even characterize that as a path to the server that is “temporarily invalid” which follows the letter of the spec.
The only problem that may exist here is if the spec actually demands such a undetectable, unenforceable, irrelevant requirement.