Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remap STOPPING to something other than zero (#1804)

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 28 September 2018 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9C6130E6A for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.456
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, 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 3q6iBCwgZPtw for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA22C130E68 for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:42:03 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1538167323; bh=af6NnZEyr66wkpP+EZKLmamjxyhHOdgoqDboBE0oa/U=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AWrw9myQ0aqTn7T8w9rYwxW1f41YjNiVUdLIKWydFf13ah9x+qispknRgOBK+DWPX l3od8Vcjf+6VxTTqP3QeNHTfEmWWT6ejnd18tseEwspc0x4shq3RAgeDI/i35+dXTl pVKr1ofuNYzK6JEbYuJoVoEVFtsOPUyzZEmndB54=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1804/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remap STOPPING to something other than zero (#1804)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bae921b8703_11a83ffd34cd45bc245894"; 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, 28 Sep 2018 20:42:06 -0000

Yeah if we agree that some QUIC stacks **may** ignore the error code of a RST_STREAM frame received after sending STOP_SENDING, then the value we assign for STOPPED is irrelevant for such stacks. OTOH, the value needs to be defined if we agree to allow the existence of stacks that do **not** ignore, and for such stacks, we might argue that assigning a non-zero value makes sense.

The question is, do we want to allow both ways of implementing QUIC?

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