Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that INITCWND caps amount of data sent to a server before address validation (#2341)

ianswett <> Thu, 17 January 2019 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486BE130EC2 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:43:25 -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 JPNsisrFuzCV for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:43:23 -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 8D38B130DFA for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:43:23 -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=03SvteCWONpFBZh0wXtnnDRv474=; b=Je7TYGTSmCyjBR6J bduB97ExkO+tv5PUYOF5Wj7wsHAgJAs0VxSXSKSq0szKcC5LetVLtt46G54ru7kp +IDrIGOeBYg+QkgRkrUZ7KCdS3Ox1zn9P74JGh5DOUh7JIq3LFY8pGfUx/TvLLvV ulGxPZeCj8Ojvd3VEnpmlzmUrdY=
Received: by with SMTP id filter1573p1mdw1-28830-5C404E3A-9 2019-01-17 09:43:22.474250768 +0000 UTC m=+205876.910640976
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id uvw1ib5uQe-WGzxFcNLdsg for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:43:22.434 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66042380B18 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:43:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:43:22 +0000
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2341/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that INITCWND caps amount of data sent to a server before address validation (#2341)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c404e3a64336_14d63f8b00ed45c066558a"; 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: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2Spo1eEL2fBX2qHr9XpFjz2/bOZL2OZenO9G ixU6w8Fx94WnHOzU8ecqa3GjSuiyAjeg+/KaL4RKyT7qv/kqx8v/LKeZqlLIKwXiFGEIOrtlzcUYMd +huSth17B8TgudcrwPydCPBQ8VMBNanDI4O5Sh4sTvUYsJO+tBtigEz+NA==
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: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:43:25 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1579,6 +1579,10 @@ the client during connection establishment with a Retry packet (see
 {{validate-retry}}) or in a previous connection using the NEW_TOKEN frame (see
+The amount that servers are permitted to send is also constrained by the limit

Suggestion: "In addition to sending limits imposed prior to address validation, servers are also constrained in what they can send by the limits set by the congestion avoidance algorithm.  Clients are only constrained by the congestion avoidance algorithm."

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