Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] are flow control frames really idempotent? (#1612)

MikkelFJ <> Tue, 31 July 2018 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C00B130E03 for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 04:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gr_MZBwEpIks for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 04:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 251E2130E6F for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 04:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 04:10:39 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533035439; bh=rIIgLByVDidEeRlCa/s94M/LGtP8f/mzz7SSlBpN5XQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=cuKskJp6O9l2NV+VjaCcFsa46ffj3KHEA+Wtd33zFYske52SPXp8ds3rBNuQ4H5T7 XXerviv+xOGF9Rl72HxJQCbqGwGGJZxJlPEnPIu3emPesjaVr9t17BvCDmImblW3aa 6HOovOfOAQW+fxlBA9sSHqTjYYunK2A6mhKLHH28=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1612/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] are flow control frames really idempotent? (#1612)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b6043afdba52_717e3f875b0d45b8327851"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:10:43 -0000

A protocol error would also go against the idempotency principle and unnecessarily tie frames to packet numbers. If there is implied ordering, the ordering should not originate from PN (possibly outside of handshake?).

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: