Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA that don't increase the flow control limits (#2082)

ekr <> Sat, 01 December 2018 02:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EACC1293FB for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:24:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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] 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 Elqc3eFnXTpR for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1834C12426E for <>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:24:03 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1543631043; bh=luDqBYeMczulinPSxbbfC+MpSxZnIMEae7zZFpLu1Z0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RVenbGcLKKgqFiSNrhFUqOug9g7ZQRYKD77/3+//AhNRCCIHuqoEoEtUPpHtMohL6 NGiZVXIlwwxNNt7pGzn4ybLPMx+8QqdNS6q8MGRunDJCDDTHm8gzDeGJUXgb9sF1Uc NSTyFmx7gXnY5+TyFmh7XR+YqNZz1hqaCiKXQCuo=
From: ekr <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2082/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA that don't increase the flow control limits (#2082)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c01f0c35c24b_76643f8004ed45b834887d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 02:24:05 -0000

Well, I think this was wrongly decided, but I'm willing to accept the consensus on the normative effect, but then this language is terrible, because it just looks like a clumsily written levy on the sender. Instead it should say:

"That is, once a receiver advertises an offset, it MAY send a packet with a smaller offset, but this has no effect."

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