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

Subodh Iyengar <> Tue, 31 July 2018 04:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AF8130DF0 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:29:47 -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 3Tn7jcLFkKUd for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08BA4130DE0 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:29:45 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533011385; bh=FAbPY7bHbF3ynT0DpMH90EehD1So7JMJeijXpDUoDGI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EBFwbIUROvSFNbkkyW9Dtn5weI7hTadOWQfLlgy9CPIRY5dCuIlkDXablKHJ36DZy cwsBqVeMZytK4So5rxNvGX8np2yEIwz96jMxhaT82HAZGKAxdj17MAHPvrju4eRm2e RMXPMgocseAHYkCmpvhPlD4/nX7rkAz2nauOLoDQ=
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_5b5fe5b96d5b_1f7a3f9eb24be624506251"; 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 04:29:48 -0000

@marten the issue isn’t about saving bytes or an optimization. The issue is a peer being able to distinguish a correct  implementation from an incorrect one. Correct implementations might be very cognizant of this behavior and do it explicitly, however allowing this makes it much harder for a peer to give early feedback to peers that did this accidentally due to another bug

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