Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that an endpoint cannot block on SETTINGS (#2986)

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 23 August 2019 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2484212083D for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 tgsbNfPc9IpH for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFB59120829 for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:21:24 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1566523284; bh=KrSaXiM/g2vsqBcVoAh59zW/yjprF90xDYIcXnyLZQo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ycI8JgijhK1Hr77E5XLNZCLrm3L09uqBuKbZFtofWzn4V3hrtMgvVP7xp9otWJJ1m osbWevE22n52QJr4gajB4iLBDI7HcNmNGFUEiO3yUKe9xir1m2yWTe9lz5JaW0yHgX 6WhmsrOmJbpUz76JcMXpiODFz0pVMamd2CeZ4EB0=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2986/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that an endpoint cannot block on SETTINGS (#2986)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d5f3f948d40e_20093fd022ecd95c3305e8"; 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: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 01:21:27 -0000

In response to by @martinthomson:
> I don't get this latter part of the sentence. I think that we should mandate, with a "MUST", that endpoints not wait for a peer's SETTINGS frame before sending their own.

I am fine with using a keyword here. Though I'd argue that it does not need to be a MUST if an endpoint can assume that SETTINGS would arrive eventually (assuming that the endpoint would not send MAX_STREAMS or MAX_STREAM_DATA that might allow the peer to prioritize transmission of other streams).

Therefore I've gone with SHOULD NOT, using a less extreme example. To paraphrase, we are essentially forbidding an endpoint behave as described in (the example that you didn't get).

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