Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RESET_STREAM should be allowed in 0-RTT packets (#2344)

Marten Seemann <> Fri, 18 January 2019 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BD112F19D for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:52:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.553
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, 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] 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 5iic7FNWhR6m for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5429112F1A6 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:52:48 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1547790768; bh=BZ5EmyW6l6FOAP8gLvRgfnIxQmvhk1CivjcuhpYq7SI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=eX0jwJa51EpmBMAML5LpYd/QYpjzFui8WDLTnD2bqG+tTLxiCxFcOZIAqSvS5SfPU 1edEAToAiaP53of4K4ipiJ4AhecaxyPWbKmJldmVQk0w7K/vvk20DkoRgjSXCT94S2 +cNCdCD7BOvJuAL5Yc++uFw5lnwnCrcqd++4gF+M=
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2344/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RESET_STREAM should be allowed in 0-RTT packets (#2344)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c4169b06144c_23e33f9a17ed45b82849dd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 05:52:51 -0000

> @marten-seemann I'm not sure if that's true. A client can always use transport parameters to specify it's limits; I doubt if there's a benefit in updating the limits using a 0-RTT packet.

There's generally good reason to keep the initial window small, since we don't have any mechanism to update the transport parameters.

> And in case of anticipating a large response, the anticipation would be that the transmission of the response would span across multiple round-trips (because of congestion control). Everything would work fine if the client's initial limit is large enough to cover what can be sent in the first round-trip (or several round-trips).

That depends very much on the concrete values used.

> Asking for permission to send _BLOCKED frames in 0-RTT packets might make sense, though I am not sure if we'd need that in practice. I think we can expect a server allowing 0-RTT to provide enough window to let the client actually use 0-RTT.

Right, I hadn't even thought about BLOCKED. I think it proves my point here: If we don't allow those frame types in 0-RTT, we'll need *a lot* of special code just for keeping those frames out of 0-RTT packets (and to delay transmission until you have 1-RTT keys). Equivalently, on the receiver side, you'd need to implement checks that the payload of 0-RTT packets only contain valid frames. I don't see any reason for special casing anything here, so we should just allow all frame types in 0-RTT packets.

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