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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 22:17 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 1171F120048 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:17:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 XrsrrVGpgOsy for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC56E120865 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:17:51 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576793871; bh=s1jIK2gtUshNR++RpiT7kvyUC9chiDaU7EwRWnM1xVc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=VzEgCanNqi9Akcfz1a1Tq13YPusJ3QqQOxg14r5c57JoQuHvPK+icnMzMquZspxwN rB0aQ6AUWywsuIpjYFmpq4NFqpnSG4idsmjOz4EV5Fy0P++zjKRURzX+Z7my0pctjs 8U8sAwdNa/w0jdqkXC0Bn8rsxXnW9e7LvS5eRRBk=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK33ZXLUDGDGXKI2NVF4BEUY7EVBNHHCADX3MM@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/334967789@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_5dfbf70fc11d3_53153fd6090cd9641132ee"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/iiCVxRylIm9VqAfk5IYG0_asgOU>
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: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:17:56 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

A few more suggestions, but this looks close.

> @@ -801,33 +801,37 @@ limit is increased.
 
 ## Flow Credit Increments {#fc-credit}

How about "Managing Flow Control"?

> -If a sender runs out of flow control credit, it will be unable to send new data
-and is considered blocked.  It is generally considered best to not let the
-sender become blocked.  To avoid blocking a sender, and to reasonably account
-for the possibility of loss, a receiver should send a MAX_DATA or
-MAX_STREAM_DATA frame at least two round trips before it expects the sender to
-get blocked.
-
-A receiver MUST NOT wait for a STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frame before
-sending MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA, since doing so will mean that a sender will
-be blocked for at least an entire round trip, and potentially for longer if the
-peer chooses to not send STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frames.
+implementations.  As an optimization, an endpoint could send frames related to
+flow control only when there are other frames to send or when a peer is blocked,
+ensuring that flow control does not cause extra packets to be sent.
+
+A sender that is blocked could choose to not send STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or

```suggestion
A blocked sender is not required to send STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or
```

> -MAX_STREAM_DATA frame at least two round trips before it expects the sender to
-get blocked.
-
-A receiver MUST NOT wait for a STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frame before
-sending MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA, since doing so will mean that a sender will
-be blocked for at least an entire round trip, and potentially for longer if the
-peer chooses to not send STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frames.
+implementations.  As an optimization, an endpoint could send frames related to
+flow control only when there are other frames to send or when a peer is blocked,
+ensuring that flow control does not cause extra packets to be sent.
+
+A sender that is blocked could choose to not send STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or
+DATA_BLOCKED frames. Therefore, a receiver MUST NOT wait for a
+STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frame before sending a MAX_STREAM_DATA or
+MAX_DATA frame; doing so could result in the sender being blocked for the rest
+of the connection. Even if the sender sent these frames, waiting for them will

```suggestion
of the connection. Even if the sender sends these frames, waiting for them will
```

> -A receiver MUST NOT wait for a STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frame before
-sending MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA, since doing so will mean that a sender will
-be blocked for at least an entire round trip, and potentially for longer if the
-peer chooses to not send STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frames.
+implementations.  As an optimization, an endpoint could send frames related to
+flow control only when there are other frames to send or when a peer is blocked,
+ensuring that flow control does not cause extra packets to be sent.
+
+A sender that is blocked could choose to not send STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or
+DATA_BLOCKED frames. Therefore, a receiver MUST NOT wait for a
+STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or DATA_BLOCKED frame before sending a MAX_STREAM_DATA or
+MAX_DATA frame; doing so could result in the sender being blocked for the rest
+of the connection. Even if the sender sent these frames, waiting for them will
+result in the sender being blocked for at least an entire round trip.
+
+When a sender receives credit after being blocked, it can send a large amount of

```suggestion
When a sender receives credit after being blocked, it may be able to send a large amount of
```

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-334967789