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

ianswett <> Wed, 01 August 2018 04:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1329A130E66 for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.109
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.109 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 R6AqIa3fZORW for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5AEF130DCE for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:52:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533099149; bh=m135xZRkNeITbcJPOQE7aRxyZe2fCQ3XeV1RMtBi/yg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1Z9h9TbmDHbj8TyG/A6PFWbFsjF8I960ypGxRRXsmVELcJcKQJYZm9VPcj0aqeick w1Gev/aYnEQA5Ar8CcCBWN2Q6XME1EN0tHv633zddN2GrhD29a2ckzPnyjPg2Gm/UV sU9ryruZb2SjDEq8gmzjjunKA3TlXSsK4AsgG85g=
From: ianswett <>
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_5b613c8d288de_1cfe3fca920be61c12056"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 04:52:32 -0000

I'm torn because I don't think retransmitting frames is right in this case, but on the other hand, I'm not sure increasing packet numbers always indicate one cannot send old frames.  With multipath, this problem may become intractable in practice, so I think the PR is an improvement.

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