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

MikkelFJ <> Tue, 31 July 2018 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CEC130DEB for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.11
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 yES5vt-31Dof for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED21127AC2 for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:46:21 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533055581; bh=lFYuQF+/IjmZqe1J2UEMNHtSYOjoP9nG3dri5S7J4FI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=XDeXysIkYNMXlEmlb9iTeWBL7ldUiGd9wX2qAiRFFkMpF21iMmnRN9A9xyUTc6W3P Yjb7hYJl/LXkmxZhh17fbuX/m/RTQPnrXgCoaHDr1IuE2QHLLvVVX/osnizr4K16w1 1Scl7pRDX9iEEsndFjxO9PZDNGaBWtAXbxlzOESo=
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_5b60925d14e77_4ca53fae578d45c47925fc"; 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 16:46:24 -0000

If frames are seen as a stream, reordering can legally happen before packetization, for example when concurrent packet transmitters draws from a single frame stream. In this context, packet numbers cannot conlude anything.

On reneg of limits: there is a difference between a lower limit as lower bound, and in fact advertising a lower limit. The former ought to be valid, the latter would lead to all sorts of problems.

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