Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are Separate Uni and Bidi Stream Limits Meaningful? (#2358)

Lucas Pardue <> Tue, 22 January 2019 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03A4128AFB for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:52:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 3jHM7el9zN-m for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:52:42 -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 958CF131007 for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:52:42 -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=O9CMfRL/djR0B/88SuYsF7lDsy8=; b=I5cq25ADLBBK+qRp ZrxBHB5bycKPSdAs1gFHJCzOOmNXRHhIxbdEkrW6LMeHc8+HpFQjF9ne7SxOnqR9 gbdJgiDUK8pguhjS56qilUO7hGmSrHwsGdNrTQ60PjsL/Msr5oiwTpwBADzcZxPH e8PfZg79lNgDS8xGNLnfX8BoQ6Q=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0308p1iad2-28478-5C477489-11 2019-01-22 19:52:41.647334766 +0000 UTC m=+317458.914206797
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id 3VeqajMbSk23C6Fj30LyvA for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:52:41.591 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C11A2A0D4B for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:52:41 +0000
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2358/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are Separate Uni and Bidi Stream Limits Meaningful? (#2358)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c4774898a9cd_ea13f8f3c6d45c42153a4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak24hbMB13lnxJjRO74fEWuUQoFSciQkvgj0Td nK+jCmp59H2z7904Wpr2tpIYrGTS8fnn8/ykPiqDwkFrTKT/Mc/MeP/nvDaZMBoKBcCfhT7S40Pvgc zEFzCiv42Avs4vUSS88aRmco7C+mSlseef1zbl+CTHRHMuoOJZ7G0egkUey3wCWPfTFZWnVvYAzfwH M=
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: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:52:45 -0000

H2 had a bit of a blind spot about controlling the servers over committal of push.

For H3, MAX_PUSH_ID alone doesn't provide enough control but with addition of the current separate ID spaces, the client has some ability to influence how available stream IDs are consumed by the server. This is because it can restrict the available unidirectional streams. With a global counter, a greedy server can gobble up newly freed up stream IDs that the client may want to create for itself.

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