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

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 31 July 2018 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B48D130E7E for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 KncoDJxR-24r for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 702EB130E3C for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:53:05 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533034385; bh=QMJbBje1hyzugsfJczZJz5K/aCefO/2LgoUhsTUMSRU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=v4zmfaI1EcIEbQAsPVFAYGP2bzN4/c9cHaMawDLvhgqCH89539dARSv0r8WSsj+pE WXxtU35z5CIpQTHkRcfMyH8xMOUQbGXf6sQvijr9LY01fnvIcheOqRPr8CyUc8GZn5 zJjPS21i8Dv8iWWfnX3q0yIHh3qhaITUqxGUkUHk=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5b603f91b9b5b_5d3a3fa6812be61838166f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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 10:53:08 -0000

> Regarding the issue, I am fine with allowing receivers to raise protocol error when they see the issue. I would oppose to making that a MUST though.

Let me retract my this comment. My understanding is that some existing QUIC implementations simply retransmit a packet (by re-encrypting it using a new PN) when it is deemed lost. I think that such implementations should be allowed to exist.

Considering that, I would oppose to even allowing implementations to raise a protocol error when they observe a smaller maximum value in a packet that has a greater PN.

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