Code change:
7.1.2. <ins> When sending to a zero-length CID receiver, senders may receive acknowledgements that combine packet numbers received over multiple paths.  However, even if one packet number space is used on multiple path the sender MUST maintain separate congestion control state for each path.  Therefore, senders MUST be able to infer the sending path from the acknowledged packet numbers, for example by remembering which packet was sent on what path.  The senders MUST use that information to perform congestion control on the relevant paths, and to correctly estimate the transmission delays on each path.  (See ack-delay-and-zero-length-cid-considerations for specific considerations about using the ACK Delay field of ACK frames, and ecn-handling for issues on using ECN marks.) Loss detection as specified in QUIC-RECOVERY uses algorithms based on timers and on sequence numbers.  When packets are sent over multiple paths, loss detection must be adapted to allow for different RTTs on different paths.  When sending to zero-length CID receivers, packets sent on different paths may be received out of order.  Therefore senders cannot directly use the packet sequence numbers to compute the Packet Thresholds defined in Section 6.1.1 of QUIC-RECOVERY. Relying only on Time Thresholds produces correct results, but is somewhat suboptimal.  Some implementations have been getting good results by not just remembering the path over which a packet was sent, but also maintaining an order list of packets sent on each path.  That ordered list can then be used to compute acknowledgement gaps per path in Packet Threshold tests. 7.1.3. </ins> The ACK Delay field of the ACK frame is relative to the largest acknowledged packet number (see Section 13.2.5 of QUIC-TRANSPORT). When using paths with different transmission delays, the reported

Related discussion:
text: If the client spoofs a path, it will never receive the challenge, and thus the server will never receive the response and will not validate the path. See section 8.2 of RFC 9000, path validation. Security section 21.1.3. Connection Migration states that "Path validation () establishes that a peer is both willing and able to receive packets sent on a particular path."
So yes, the current text should be "the servers MUST in turn attempt to validate these paths using the same mechanisms, as specified in {{ Section 8.2 of RFC9000 }}."
No, this should not be a MUST. It is true that the path MUST be validated before it can be used. However, just because the serve receives a new packet on a path, that doesn't automatically mean that the server has to start path validation. It could e.g. also decide to simply withdraw that packet.
Actually, this is also not right. This is what RFC9000 says (section 9): So I guess we should maybe not use normative language here but refer to section 9 in RFC9000 instead...?
Just submitted PR for this issue.
This draft initially originates from a merging effort of previous Multipath proposals. While many points were found to be common between them, there remains one design point that still requires consensus: the number of packet number spaces that a Multipath QUIC connection should support (i.e., one for the whole connection vs. one per path). The current draft enables experimentation with both variants, but in the final version we will certainly need to choose between one of the versions.
The main issues mentioned so far: Efficiency. One number space per path should be more efficient, because implementations can directly reuse the loss-recovery logic specified for QUIC ACK size. Single space leads to lots of out of order delivery, which causes ACK sizes to grow Simplicity of code. Single space can be implemented without adding mane new code paths to uni-path QUIC Shorter header. Single space works well with NULL length CID The picoquic implementation shows that "efficiency" and "ack size" issues of single space implementations can be mitigated.