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

MikkelFJ <> Sat, 01 December 2018 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC67126CB6 for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 00:38:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ahk4GKrqIrHX for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 00:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C66CE12426E for <>; 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;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2082/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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
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: 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: