Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] are flow control frames really idempotent? (#1612)

Subodh Iyengar <> Tue, 31 July 2018 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61736130E24 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 gZjtjh5HBYZ3 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6DE3130DCE for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:43:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533008630; bh=U9nba9BplxeF3B6X5dCbM1EM3y4vp1APurKvrU3+0DQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=L5XZzcqsg07DtlLOhmm4uy7On1HkhfJAkzfUxUN05ZhibqCGUv+ztTxVPkNws0Cto ryg4JG7UUl9mivIUpvBIuJWmFZmJjLlT26MU22sKp9oJ4PbkX+zM0SpWQ4+POcjEjw HQsVyct6hY+4n/JHyK9WFMcYUN5ic20ykp+XTEc4=
From: Subodh Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1612/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] are flow control frames really idempotent? (#1612)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b5fdaf63d271_509b3f867fabe628325787"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: siyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:43:53 -0000

When you're doing 2 why would you not send the latest update?

We also do 2, but we send the latest update. We additionally keep track of the packet number of the last sent max data per stream and per conn, that way we know when we get an ack for X we know that we still have a max data pending. It's not super complex :)

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