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

Mike Bishop <> Mon, 03 December 2018 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDC8128BCC for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:39:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.46
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.46 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 HshZCNifP_Ms for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:39:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A9091241F6 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:39:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=KSJOYUUPc2aweHjb6yt4Bn05ccI=; b=r0aJNFQ1ke9rS0Dy AcGNzrT25N/qn67V6BFe+OJJEhPaw/LeC3cCkE+aCOIWlwjpbnXUIExcOOfKWLj2 nGYj9+IgDU2KrPZ4XqLutzKrFwnkYHaQv0LMQ8kZjgUk/zme85oJC0ei3wvs75dG P7xYEeEQ8TwEN07kJnkrhNPa6hs=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0686p1las1-8184-5C058683-2A 2018-12-03 19:39:47.991568089 +0000 UTC m=+152958.642162377
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id VrWlQdFdQqWb4YFxbwKTvg for <>; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 19:39:47.908 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2A546138A for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:39:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 19:39:48 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <>
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_5c058683daf81_48393fa7eaed45b421166b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3S+JEDAskcGWxl64x23zPgcrYu1EwRb6fBdp NOz0B+mLSSzdXiD1yC6aB5sh1BlK0CN/tSO5/zUpWhc/hMQh0DyuD6oC58mGhxNxfLLwRYxrCF9JDT ogv6TLWPt3FboXuTZrhz7XQU9BmqwRcK2erfMOFCKCRcMoJgrbESDtgG52688x4yOaF345xx4PKh56 k=
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 19:39:51 -0000

Also because a naive implementation that just blindly retransmitted frames from lost packets would then be invalid, rather than simply unoptimized.  While that behavior isn't something we want to encourage, it's not clear that we want to outlaw it, either.

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