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

ianswett <> Tue, 31 July 2018 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2D6130DEA for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:22:34 -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 5Mhb9VJKjOQt for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D60F130DFB for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:22:31 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1533007351; bh=ZdzgFFoqw9F03g55sPAvtH3cselAHE2oLBz5dEeTj4A=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TWhr1Xvcqhc3h8I0f8OFVoU6zV9+PH7VubLCDnBK62Paf8oOyC+DuXnnNhthsho+i NouA8MdYc6Xq6hWUmV6TH5Z+pzWfEfQ8FjXhV9QdKvI5js13Pc1lzk2/T+9Vr3FnlC vePC70meZWUna+MueEvnAWS8fz3ILfu9AfG1rjIE=
From: ianswett <>
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_5b5fd5f757610_2a9473f97094be6204204d3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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 03:22:34 -0000

I think it's ok to close the connection or stream in this case, but I don't believe it should be mandated.  A MAY seems appropriate on the receiver side and a MUST on the sender side?

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