On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, at 13:52, Kazuho Oku wrote: > FWIW my complaint against the original approach was that it needs yet > another mechanism to limit concurrency (as without one there would be > concern of state exhaustion) and that I do not like it.
I don't think that this has concurrency issues. You receive a frame, you send a frame. That said, Igor's idea is attractive. With some allowance for endpoints throttling updates on frequent changes, that would reduce the number of frames we need and improve reliability. Endpoint advertises support in transport parameter; peer sends frame when it adds a path.
