Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RESET_STREAM should be allowed in 0-RTT packets (#2344)

Benjamin Saunders <> Fri, 18 January 2019 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62464130E9C for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:55:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.552 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 xC0Ej8myDCqi for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31B8812F1A6 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:54:59 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1547790899; bh=53Ng1l+COZmE8XSuoPezMph46XodRK+hzPTomtFvjuY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=syzOPJSj03eDXmsTlzUo564E1Vf57JcNZPJM33sf41teyztP7w+kpA+1h3suIvH2+ Z2Oyu+frKAMpfaMrydcKQsNzmzgfi/i4fli42Gj8rJPCJy2V0V4Gu8pXpUkxeH8rAg FCnnJg/ycEZ0yBcwYp3t9DXHUpo0JMOndO/XbLzw=
From: Benjamin Saunders <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2344/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RESET_STREAM should be allowed in 0-RTT packets (#2344)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c416a3357591_57303fd10f4d45c0170249c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: Ralith
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: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 05:55:02 -0000

> And in case of anticipating a large response, the anticipation would be that the transmission of the response would span across multiple round-trips (because of congestion control). Everything would work fine if the client's initial limit is large enough to cover what can be sent in the first round-trip (or several round-trips).

I can imagine an application protocol oriented around using streams as message framing that might have small initial limits to support proportionately large numbers of in-flight streams, but occasionally request large responses by issuing MAX_STREAM_DATA alongside the request. Supporting such a pattern in 0-RTT seems useful.

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