Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA that don't increase the flow control limits (#2082)
MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Sat, 01 December 2018 08:38 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@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 8BC67126CB6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 00:38:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 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_HI=-5, 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 ahk4GKrqIrHX for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 00:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C66CE12426E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 00:38:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 00:38:05 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1543653485; bh=uxyl123jEgdSXy2PVLroc4BtCZI+MWKGF5WMxMernjE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=14TYJ5Pj5VfGr2vBBLVi/cxmNXnz1l54j/4mdyX0b6ToU2nPYFKU3VDTU9p+nzzFA Kpvem2++Cih128uDev38/Q191EaQpnwg74dFFBPRSrLuUDNIfkvTBh+ZcUD60h5ojL ZQfL0M7xC3/Y67MPJ5oHc228ceHRrZ3fY5TSN+h4=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab58011d734c12ac3ad050835b8a7166e51266237a92cf00000001181a0a6d92a169ce17082871@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2082/443410379@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_5c02486d17522_46fb3ffa0bcd45c01926221"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/QS7aKzgz8ZcrFpaaDp95_tkF0LY>
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: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 08:38:09 -0000
It would be wasteful to track all that state for very little benefit. Reordering us likely, invalid max sequencing less so. For future multipath it would get complicated. A peer could also schedule packets out of order due to concurrent pipelines, so checking PN could be damaging. -- 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-443410379
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DATA o… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why ignore MAX_STREAM_DA… janaiyengar