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

Dmitri Tikhonov <> Tue, 31 July 2018 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E55E126F72 for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:56:04 -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 LA1H3yIef5j9 for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAB89130EDF for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:56:00 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533052560; bh=isUPuoHGP4ZD5LLQtu52trkzrwjw47ZKAEH7IZY5sE4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yToNL49H5zqpmFNLIj89FvRDGuHrfOwNZwqQwk/dSKbqYBtgVIEpnjn1T9GMpadCU 9sibjjnxNUjF/Lj4j5vXpxx6YrE4IknruGilSPyX9ZEzxaIbbzff+c3D8vd6Ng8+oq qHW51WLnF/DQRtyKAU4T7X+7AR4VRNiKECi3tgjo=
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <>
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_5b608690d1e09_1220d3f819e4be628306612"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: dtikhonov
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 15:56:04 -0000

I see what you mean, @siyengar.  (Near-identical wording is used to describe _MAX_STREAM_ID_ behavior.)  If we keep the _MUST NOT renege_, then the receiver SHOULD check for this error.  As you pointed out above, it is easily done.

>From the implementation perspective, it is quite doable as well.  These frame types are to be added to the list of frames to be deleted from a packet upon retransmission (e.g. _ACK_ frame).  Erasure of these frames would trigger generation of new _MAX_DATA_ (and friends) frames.

On the other hand, I like the simplicity of ignoring lower values -- but that's just my pragmatic side...

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