Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add further guidance related to unidirectional stream TPs (#2612)

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

LPardue commented on this pull request.



> @@ -321,8 +321,19 @@ defined in this document: control streams ({{control-streams}}) and push streams
 ({{push-streams}}).  Other stream types can be defined by extensions to HTTP/3;
 see {{extensions}} for more details.
 
-Both clients and servers SHOULD send a value of three or greater for the QUIC
-transport parameter `initial_max_uni_streams`.
+The performance of HTTP/3 connections in the early phase of their lifetime is
+sensitive to the creation and exchange of data on unidirectional streams.
+Endpoints that set low values for the QUIC transport parameters
+`initial_max_uni_streams` and `initial_max_stream_data_uni` will increase the
+chance that the remote peer reaches the limit early. In particular, the value
+chosen for `initial_max_uni_streams` should consider that remote peers may wish
+to exercise reserved stream behaviour ({{stream-grease}}). Limits can be
+increased post handshake at the cost of additional RTT, for example by
+exchanging `STREAMS_BLOCKED` and `MAX_STREAMS` QUIC frames. To reduce the

That's a fair point. However, practically speaking, if a peer spends credit legitimately and needs more, how does it get it?

We're seeing various HTTP/3 issues around getting blocked by conservative initial values, and there is little guidance on ways to mitigate this happening. If the answer is to aggressively dole out credit, it kind of devalues having limits.

-- 
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/2612#discussion_r274960237