Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 08:27:57 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
 <reply+0166e4aba78e47381deb068182563cf80b58f9dfa3116e4492cf00000001164a688d92a169ce10d16a95@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1016@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Split stream initial flow control (#1016)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_5a32a68da291_2e863f8a7f472f2c26804f";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/lSU6rWty_HiNEMh2ZEcnI8pnaF0>


----==_mimepart_5a32a68da291_2e863f8a7f472f2c26804f
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The initial_max_stream_data transport parameter governs three types of stream data:
* data received on unidirectional streams initiated by a peer
* data received on bidirectional streams initiated by a peer
* data received on bidirectional streams initiated by this endpoint

These are currently all controlled by the same transport parameter.  We should consider whether having multiple transport parameters is desirable.  Obviously, having more is desirable, and I could see a fairly good case for just relying on MAX_STREAM_DATA for the last of these, but for streams that are remotely initiated, that is less directly useful.  It seems likely that streams used for different purposes will have different constraints.

-- 
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/1016
----==_mimepart_5a32a68da291_2e863f8a7f472f2c26804f
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<p>The initial_max_stream_data transport parameter governs three types of stream data:</p>
<ul>
<li>data received on unidirectional streams initiated by a peer</li>
<li>data received on bidirectional streams initiated by a peer</li>
<li>data received on bidirectional streams initiated by this endpoint</li>
</ul>
<p>These are currently all controlled by the same transport parameter.  We should consider whether having multiple transport parameters is desirable.  Obviously, having more is desirable, and I could see a fairly good case for just relying on MAX_STREAM_DATA for the last of these, but for streams that are remotely initiated, that is less directly useful.  It seems likely that streams used for different purposes will have different constraints.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1016">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWbkq1KgWmdiQslFMjz5h-g2wFM_Pnv6ks5tAUyNgaJpZM4RCUew">mute the thread</a>.<img alt="" height="1" src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWbkq9YvQSc8UE-OLSv-u0bMdmp-Yv1Iks5tAUyNgaJpZM4RCUew.gif" width="1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop="action" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ViewAction">
  <link itemprop="url" href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1016"></link>
  <meta itemprop="name" content="View Issue"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop="description" content="View this Issue on GitHub"></meta>
</div>

<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/quicwg/base-drafts","title":"quicwg/base-drafts","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"DESCRIPTION","message":"Split stream initial flow control (#1016)"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1016"}}}</script>
----==_mimepart_5a32a68da291_2e863f8a7f472f2c26804f--