Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are Separate Uni and Bidi Stream Limits Meaningful? (#2358)

ianswett <> Tue, 22 January 2019 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFD912785F for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:11:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 buAL-9JVKYho for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49FDF130F1B for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:11:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=Yq/WZQnX+YwZAvrL2nAj1rdP0Go=; b=F7ml3w4O31RFV7Zx 9Xs0r5hIqvIKez/kihI02tX8rSnN8fdUfbVEaBjk3a7Rlc0lrCrfEyrSFsCyiQZV 0QIL7WGuFiEtCm9QcUWySlEhXx3a3I4V/blHsKdzUPjGtwBe3NUnayMdqgWzlZYg MrKNAwXtINWGcQXvER5X7lxQcZs=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0358p1iad2-30223-5C476AF2-F 2019-01-22 19:11:46.240128337 +0000 UTC m=+322119.726431980
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id fIz2xYB2SRefO0QKbGtJGQ for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:11:46.190 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C813E0084 for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:11:46 +0000
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2358/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are Separate Uni and Bidi Stream Limits Meaningful? (#2358)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c476af226404_41933fd20e6d45b41068cd"; 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-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak0vOG3rAhUJZ7gwjYcwFXLSAZ/X3283VF3uB0 WyH58GuGCq+TAqOZAxK1HHnqVQN7Pno6+H4VRq3Ud25xlghPEf9dNjeXNHouTEGEbh2wNY0LkgCtRl JHoUdCo3rFKb2asFutc1YaVW/kE+bgZmWKJyfIztWEP9hBHRflf7kLWalg==
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 22 Jan 2019 19:11:52 -0000

I think this is a good question, and I believe we decided on separate limits because people thought they were useful for HTTP, particularly in the context of server push where you may want to limit the number of pushes?  But now we have MAX_PUSH_ID at the HTTP layer, so that particular use case isn't a good motivation.

If we believe a single limit is better, I think we would end up wanting to revisit a variety of design details, so I suspect the WG is not excited about that.

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