Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't recommend 3 RTTs of credit (and other editorial) (#3301)

ianswett <> Tue, 17 December 2019 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100A9120B80 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:14:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 x0A2b4aIrOr5 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C521120B2E for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:14:49 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1576602889; bh=dcC+n4zZv3IopetUnpwDn6zayQO9ln+4OZwAoyit3jc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=nKKMRfyhm9ncDQRQZi/bujZdu6PS/PRuV4fT9zxt9Y8GlKHxnvIWZxt1TqVwxVChX shNazYHjyMdAxeaXsSOsXm+XfvGbCGk2kJ3umzuD3ZIvzEROt3/BvWIBSk6hqyCSVd tIfrTsX/QwfJghg7GLYaZJ3dOTsRICr04xOPy8pM=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3301/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't recommend 3 RTTs of credit (and other editorial) (#3301)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df90d0958105_1f153fc2aa0cd968182175"; 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: 2.1.29
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, 17 Dec 2019 17:14:53 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

-If a sender runs out of flow control credit, it will be unable to send new data
-and is considered blocked.  It is generally considered best to not let the
-sender become blocked.  To avoid blocking a sender, and to reasonably account
-for the possibility of loss, a receiver should send a MAX_DATA or
-MAX_STREAM_DATA frame at least two round trips before it expects the sender to
-get blocked.
-A receiver MUST NOT wait for a STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frame before
-sending MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA, since doing so will mean that a sender will
-be blocked for at least an entire round trip, and potentially for longer if the
-peer chooses to not send STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frames.
+When a sender receives credit after being blocked, it can send a large amount of
+data in response resulting in short-term congestion; see Section 6.9 in

data in response, resulting in short-term congestion; see Section 6.9 in

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