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

Dmitri Tikhonov <> Tue, 31 July 2018 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED6E130E5B for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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, 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 SVG8RF14o8hL for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8921130DC6 for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
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=zgPfDjuWUWvf3EdcuiIHsqRJZnI=; b=nLLOEe4suCsQih48 N5r0MO2ejJgZHigMkWVasWG09zk86WXyPM8s9+sZIYYdRhqMol4gaD4yIeoR4To7 qNR1WHga8RobS+PHx/xdxrdJRFx0JvC5mAFJYLgzkrkuoapOfJ/m0SMqGwjm3hCw TvCm83pxHb94mZ+YMfI6Qn3ZM9E=
Received: by with SMTP id filter1751p1mdw1-25478-5B609F6B-1B 2018-07-31 17:42:03.696069216 +0000 UTC m=+501982.902252458
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id aZP7dm-FQQmYiAbxiuxr5Q for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:42:03.566 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E313E17CC for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:42:03 +0000
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <>
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_5b609f6b8328a_7b093fa36dcd45c41454fb"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: dtikhonov
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak178FgrjKt3AhuyNFiR9kgF05924jR5bC6T73 ughuReJWIhWRxTSRZ60ggXNShY0fiDGwNbFpl+/V3hh69IZSGeVVIWU6AoAYngtgpp2xqvrj/f4dpB pZm/fSM7NIQgcpUd0ywidKmMdfpY590FkB2Z46s8ZFcA9EIaZtNVBqx99P2uWHNhnC/7B2J6vureGJ s=
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 17:42:09 -0000

@siyengar writes:
> I think a receiver should be allowed to verify that this happens, it is just not required to do so, and we should also allow for implementations that don't verify this check. So if an implementation does send a frame pattern like this, it should be aware that it will not interoperate against some implementations.

In practice, it will mean that all sender implementations will make sure not to send such frame pattern.  When I see that something _MAY result in an error_ (we have some other instances in the other QUIC drafts), it always strikes me as odd:  Surely, if something MAY result in an error, it forces the peer's hand; it is effectively a MUST.

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