Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] are flow control frames really idempotent? (#1612)

Subodh Iyengar <> Tue, 31 July 2018 03:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656F6130DCE for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 PFqw-mL-22ZY for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C434F127333 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:28:34 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533007714; bh=94Vmmz0gMN4Y+93veQL8p1rYFky2DzFg47d6w3NIGbA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=lXqn/YKmS2S8slNO2DnhENFLHsOChShGmq7qrkzCrC7wDcqhcMmFXy4qhNXtoqgUq aFL+yJV9hfXrnAWVM1YPIc4H38z+vQj/uRS3U8q7tGEUBhC4LZ5d4G4Rk1TQ8n6naX rbiUty9J8ggT1fyfH/3jD+X7fIfOlarjXCUXkx30=
From: Subodh Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1612/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] are flow control frames really idempotent? (#1612)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b5fd762b1b88_1a613fbdd6ed45bc3741fd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: siyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:29:40 -0000

Ya I think a MAY should suffice on the receiver side and I would be very happy with a MUST on the sender, however the general sentence about all QUIC frames are idempotent might mislead people into thinking that they can send any frame at any time. Do you think that "a valid frame" covers this case?  That is after sending a higher max data frame lower max data frames become invalid.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: