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

Marten Seemann <> Fri, 18 January 2019 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674191310D9 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:07:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.149 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 J1nd_S9qgBeq for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8B4131058 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:07:12 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1547788032; bh=AiQQMu1ua23ES7iXKx/OcCbFVnZ8d/f3i4DxRRmP/VI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Ktp47hEMDS0nwZp6HKKDpDZOM8aSiT/LNg0r0qyx0+d6LBL4940ZUGQOswTSNsdnj cLceaepmHGNKYQL5TZoxlgV2HGVy/5zspGLj3MUSBnlWMb5WOatWKFWfMRndGIeERT p/G7olp9hAWoQPxEZ0aqehKvPzb3ynNuPRJDg5qY=
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_5c415f00bca09_c6a3fd7b2cd45b425998d"; 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 05:07:15 -0000

I don't understand why we would consider e.g. flow control updates worthy of higher protection than application data.
Note that there's a real use case for sending flow control updates in 0-RTT packets: A client might anticipate a large response when it sends a request in 0-RTT request, and it can save one roundtrip by granting a lot of flow control credit for that response.

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