IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA that don't increase the flow control limits (#2082)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Tue, 04 December 2018 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F41F130E2F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 09:52:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1FrK2l35i0ZX for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 09:52:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o4.sgmail.github.com (o4.sgmail.github.com [192.254.112.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6360A1292AD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 09:52:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; 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=Y77x9m3XYHHmd9LmY2WIzRnohkI=; b=P7Bl19M7eDfJ+133 5XXN4gLluwurGqkmvjzEkLaKOmpGGzHsrVULNhb5q/XyShbRU/18mHFTo//SOZeD kDc5LAYtVUqRWTKF6HvV54v86jMmZP2eqdKZ2+dqGW2R5aKa34pOsF/UDsWpw9Jd 45Cs9ShfqMTeq8pRhlBUnKk6gN0=
Received: by filter1245p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1245p1las1-6130-5C06BEE6-23 2018-12-04 17:52:38.506652564 +0000 UTC m=+61141.738859115
Received: from github-lowworker-dcd58f3.cp1-iad.github.net (unknown [192.30.252.33]) by ismtpd0034p1iad2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id JOSiNGsfQA-li8oEMhjb2g for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:52:38.449 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from github.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by github-lowworker-dcd58f3.cp1-iad.github.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68691240D70 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 09:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:52:38 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abe9cd5709b74d2b3aa69cc05e70fc047de381539d92cf00000001181e80e692a169ce17082871@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2082/444193899@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2082@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2082@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA that don't increase the flow control limits (#2082)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c06bee665ab6_57593f9fc78d45b89417f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2cjTxCf4EXPr0cBhDKUmrDWfofdsnZMB+hrT b5JMmGHalGhRUTLW71sYQZ+t9D3Z7IFcoJw6ZZya0DDiRyIzewFTjKDflUyEZl3VlmwWvpBlQF27Q+ Ht9GtC+dJT9SrelmJgkQxlAANf8OMM+x15/iNgKEMTooljiJZ/Qmmuqv74hJMJuIrRQSf+1NXIUlD4 s=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/Nli-BdSEcpQRjwlXFo1PfmHDpLY>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:52:43 -0000

I think the requirement on the sender is still correct.  Regardless of where it occurs (packet scheduling, retransmission, or wire), this is fundamentally a statement about reordering tolerance on the recipient of MAX(_STREAM)?_DATA, which is the sender of data.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2082#issuecomment-444193899

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email