Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unidirectional stream (some or) all the control things in HTTP/3 (#2678)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 14 May 2019 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8728E1200EF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id suiSdgLDJuV2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81DAF1200B4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:36:00 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557858960; bh=sr2lR4bNezAsRYR1lFlTAHLuv1wkGDrrWbemvqE1x/Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=dHxT/gRsZBZUukNgWzuAqW0XK/WiDuz1gpg015MifHP7PfUcqKT7F2eeZeZM9XT5r DXA6RLVxtbuuJkOuj7R/i4OHUfNjdytwZp4X2bb/MprmOaYNdbRtn7EvUcPj1hH6OA 9JUgYeYpvvAfoF4c/yF2B5DT+PXWnO8xZKp1g5xQ=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3DJDHDHTLOV6YHESN25A6RBEVBNHHBUVMWDQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2678/492357584@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2678@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2678@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unidirectional stream (some or) all the control things in HTTP/3 (#2678)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cdb0a909c73e_39f23fb5f42cd9601556d7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/-FAZIvgu1yAu9cQvmjI5WGnhzU4>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 18:36:04 -0000

@dtikhonov Q on "Then there are the corner cases. For example, what happens when the client decides to cancel the stream whose lost STREAM packet caused the priority stream blockage?" 

In this case, the server would either have to block until the stream was reset or buffer priority operations for later use.  I agree both of these options are fairly unappealing, but is there a reason it's worse than that?

-- 
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/2678#issuecomment-492357584