Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Crisp definition of BLOCKING and friends (#1889)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

kazuho commented on this pull request.



> @@ -4340,8 +4340,9 @@ The STREAM_ID_BLOCKED frame contains a single field.
 
 Stream ID:
 
-: A variable-length integer indicating the highest stream ID that the sender
-  was permitted to open.
+: A variable-length integer indicating the stream ID limit at the time the
+  sender was unable to open new streams.

Same issue here.

I am afraid that the text might still imply the same thing; i.e. the maximum stream ID that the sender was permitted to open at the time the sender was unable to open the streams.

> @@ -4281,8 +4281,8 @@ The BLOCKED frame contains a single field.
 
 Offset:
 
-: A variable-length integer indicating the connection-level offset at which
-  the blocking occurred.
+: A variable-length integer indicating the connection flow control limit at the
+  time the frame is sent.

I actually prefer the old text, assuming that we do not have a clarification on what "limit" means here. In other parts of the transport protocol we represent the limit using an "inclusive maximum." But here, we need a limit expressed as "exclusive maxmimum."

IMO the original text is clearer in stating that the offset is "maximum offset permitted by MAX_DATA + 1", by saying that the transmitted value is "the offset at which the blocking occurred."

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1889#pullrequestreview-166377837