Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't recommend 3 RTTs of credit (and other editorial) (#3301)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 05:55 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 B411512088B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:55:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 CLQ77i6rGIUS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:55:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 411B5120098 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:55:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-5fb2734.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5fb2734.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.19.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903176A1A22 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:55:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576648508; bh=yM3p9iiBDNr3NHTYMeyKYuTWa73RtKrc1CA1Q0P8SCc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=rvl8aY1ifuf4z25wpHPFiyAEaIqEmVCkFf55gcOOuyaFEZKMjsgTs5iLlmMM1yGl6 0OMPPryprxLldgYbcA1a/J25xaF854EL5/6OPO9qzQWPuYgF+vMH8hQ1XJ62/nKJnL 6dl7pzthnoSNn3iro3RsEUrkGxV6eB2u/OhWkpto=
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:55:08 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4SO7VIRX4XUWYVFCF4A3Y3ZEVBNHHCADX3MM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3301/review/333742037@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3301@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3301@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't recommend 3 RTTs of credit (and other editorial) (#3301)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df9bf3c80dd7_2c353f7f60ccd96c120550"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/USxbh2LVMMZrVmJm91m6_dTC2uc>
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, 18 Dec 2019 05:55:11 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -801,33 +801,41 @@ limit is increased.
 
 ## Flow Credit Increments {#fc-credit}
 
-This document leaves when and how many bytes to advertise in a MAX_STREAM_DATA
-or MAX_DATA frame to implementations, but offers a few considerations.  These
-frames contribute to connection overhead.  Therefore frequently sending frames
-with small changes is undesirable.  At the same time, larger increments to
-limits are necessary to avoid blocking if updates are less frequent, requiring
-larger resource commitments at the receiver.  Thus there is a trade-off between
-resource commitment and overhead when determining how large a limit is
-advertised.
+Implementations decide when and how many bytes to advertise in MAX_STREAM_DATA
+and MAX_DATA frames. This section describes one requirement and offers a few
+considerations.
+
+A receiver MUST NOT wait for a STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frame before

Ah, I forgot that I had thought about this and decided to leave it as it is :-) We do not require a sender to send a BLOCKED frame, and we therefore need to require receivers to not wait for this frame since it may never arrive. That's a deadlock (of a strange sort).


-- 
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/pull/3301#discussion_r359162790