Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC flow control is not quite like HTTP/2 (#3766)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 16 June 2020 01:31 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 0E72E3A0F71 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.899
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.899 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 2TZCe-sWglZx for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E3D3A0F61 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-1b8c660.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-1b8c660.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.18.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4C42828A3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1592271036; bh=8+SMhU3xgYtaOzWYzp1gYso6T91j8w6yqAXJLApcV5o=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=fGNTwrv0qheKBqek1CjHSgNKMAPtv6wwsC3RHqx9W9QPlZE2tsVfoQSID3aUo98GI wDoYS82Kj89tZyAtMbltQvTJnv/AajFz9EGrEnPHzeXqJ8H8XumBaZ5uCEaxQ8BrwB TOeoeAcDQ4LJT0k09TGE0RPOxpxZbUo2eabgX5EI=
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:30:36 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4RG3R3BJ3HQLTO6CV46QA3ZEVBNHHCMF53IY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3766/review/431098081@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3766@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3766@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC flow control is not quite like HTTP/2 (#3766)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ee820bc474ed_4b0f3f8eb52cd96c75652"; 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
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/rcYqL82bM3b-vqQZ890r-nZs9J4>
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 01:31:01 -0000

@martinthomson approved this pull request.



> @@ -792,10 +792,9 @@ is not excessive buffering at multiple layers.
 
 ## Data Flow Control {#data-flow-control}
 
-QUIC employs a credit-based flow-control scheme similar to that in HTTP/2
-{{?HTTP2}}, where a receiver advertises the number of bytes it is prepared to
-receive on a given stream and for the entire connection.  This leads to two
-levels of data flow control in QUIC:
+QUIC employs a limit-based flow-control scheme similar, where a receiver

```suggestion
QUIC employs a limit-based flow-control scheme where a receiver
```

> -A receiver MAY send MAX_STREAM_DATA frames in multiple packets in order to make
-sure that the sender receives an update before running out of flow control
-credit, even if one of the packets is lost.
-
-A receiver advertises credit for a connection by sending a MAX_DATA frame, which
-indicates the maximum of the sum of the absolute byte offsets of all streams.  A
-receiver maintains a cumulative sum of bytes received on all streams, which is
-used to check for flow control violations. A receiver might use a sum of bytes
-consumed on all streams to determine the maximum data limit to be advertised.
-
-A receiver can advertise a larger offset by sending MAX_STREAM_DATA or MAX_DATA
-frames.  Once a receiver advertises an offset, it MAY advertise a smaller
-offset, but this has no effect.
+frames to the sender to advertise larger limits.
+
+A receiver can advertise a larger limit for a stream by sending a MAX_STREAM_DATA

"can advertise a larger limit" or "can increase the limit for a stream"

> @@ -845,7 +844,7 @@ is flow control limited SHOULD periodically send a STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED or
 DATA_BLOCKED frame when it has no ack-eliciting packets in flight.
 
 
-## Flow Credit Increments {#fc-credit}
+## Incrementing Flow Control {#fc-credit}

```suggestion
## Increasing Flow Control Limits {#fc-credit}
```

-- 
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/3766#pullrequestreview-431098081