[quicwg/base-drafts] What was intended by “control violations” (#4019)

Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com> Wed, 19 August 2020 14:30 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 AA0BA3A0B20 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 CwFXJs9GHLwn for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77BA93A09FA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E70340DE1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1597847401; bh=U4ehFqQqOiaccosIeJyBPIHWR4tXlJi0Payl+456h4E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=JLHXjXx/MbQ1Gu+lltg70fKU28QElVKJPBh3bY0j3p6P3mIpnQraQj32NeClQAoXl /XM6LppHVQolGIgRnptt2nKmx/77cvYVAEN0o1jgFOm85YeBKH/ewVX/sGWV0iqO6g jeLpQ7pYPtSsNOR3Zk0qIOJMQ6SWo0zVs8W9VuMQ=
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:30:01 -0700
From: Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKY362VS53TLTZZWJVV5JEMGTEVBNHHCRJGG5A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4019@github.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?[quicwg/base-drafts]_What_was_intended_by?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=E2=80=9Ccontrol_violations=E2=80=9D_=28#4019=29?=
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3d3769a68c4_4f8a19641194b6"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: larseggert
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/Tv20euKdTkKguCnDdi1PFBQENA8>
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: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:30:04 -0000

(Broken out of #3241.)

>A receiver maintains a cumulative sum of
>   bytes received on all streams, which is used to check for flow
>   control violations./
- It would have helped me, had this explained what was intended by “control violations” - I think it means to detect when the sender sends more than permitted by the flow control limit. I think the control part comes in a later sentence? (Is this measured against the largest advertised offset, or the current offset? … given what is written about reducing the advertised value?)



-- 
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/4019