IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] why require in order delivery? (#252)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 5F51512964B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:41:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, 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 VMsgFR-vxPNN for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o7.sgmail.github.com (o7.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDC8F129579 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:40:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=nzL4p6n1p+YAXr3rvPo77U0kh5Y=; b=h+P4ChC8J43EZ3my BClCudSURie6tpIhWpJVvCksJixVEpgrmEaxvDBhWDuPcP7qYgNwvH+e8nE5eSye eOAmvttWzCH/8gwHAQ4LNV8Vr0gGODCxjXAyrgRQUZ8RIf5H2TB0Obv/6/0c5cI3 KxMu2LJNND/d2h6o6wIHL6JrvoU=
Received: by filter1127p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1127p1mdw1-16076-58912089-18 2017-01-31 23:40:57.316691793 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0004p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id iAIspvlrTMWswiAThpWJlg for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:40:57.333 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:40:57 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/252/276529643@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/252@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/252@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] why require in order delivery? (#252)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_589120893b12f_65b83fad2274f130669c0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak00TpN6vxoGKw0pXoqOkqIpu7keCHMdnm5ivo PONXJuDRyWEWnl3qTZY3pKN5usGDpL3Rm09M9kw80HHHY01gt3MCFD85asQgStJwxNzr9IYwt0G3VC 1On47c5NOOixFyXf7BjSJ7hxUSBDB++OZpT0WGVYSEGbQYiTy8pIwE6rsQ3txDbZT47YQpQGhmtBaW s=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/jahaGtQ-xEsq2LiELZRwNgQ8Y2E>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:41:01 -0000

I had the same comment.  Someone once told me that in-order delivery was a choice that the receiver made, not a requirement on the protocol.  At least in the abstract.

The only catch here is that flow control assumes in-order delivery.

-- 
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/issues/252#issuecomment-276529643

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status