Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Point out that the payload size could decrease (#3424)

MikkelFJ <> Wed, 11 March 2020 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA553A0D7D for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 qEm1S_elZ1P1 for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1363A0D6C for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD42A8C0D29 for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583945259; bh=0cH6HD+9647ZwSwVP/1F8NtwY5v7h361Dv5lJ6CBros=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=b1u/VT7CTEr1V1g1jjZOUh7QlzfrzAqwrKbQEBcMLl9FPUAVAN+kz+N+7oZwkq4mL cm2fWxX7m9OXyZAjibDmMQ31zwCozG7GQ0TJju2peSeG/yjGJVfvq+PpMuFxGVn5mh ptW7h6LI2fYi+N42w3N755I+k2qiRK1xrlsacWTg=
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:47:39 -0700
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3424/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Point out that the payload size could decrease (#3424)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e69162bad311_2dca3fd2ddecd96c8173f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:47:50 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3374,9 +3374,11 @@ priorities specified by the application indicate otherwise (see
 Even though a sender is encouraged to assemble frames containing up-to-date
 information every time it sends a packet, it is not forbidden to retransmit
-copies of frames from lost packets.  A receiver MUST accept packets containing
-an outdated frame, such as a MAX_DATA frame carrying a smaller maximum data than
-one found in an older packet.
+copies of frames from lost packets.  A sender that retransmits copies of frames
+needs to handle decreases in available payload size due to change in packet
+number length, connection ID length, and path MTU.  A receiver MUST accept
+packets containing an outdated frame, such as a MAX_DATA frame carrying a
+smaller maximum data than one found in an older packet.

I don't understand this text: I can see old data arriving in new packets and you can't generally which is the latest valid, except when you can, such as MAX_DATA. You don't want to accept old MAX_DATA frames (or at least not change behaviour based on it).

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