IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Fri, 18 January 2019 05:07 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 674191310D9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:07:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.149
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 J1nd_S9qgBeq for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8B4131058 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; 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; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab87f27f312bd0ae662fec07c3470cc45b5f1c566892cf000000011859210092a169ce17e00219@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2344/455429150@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2344@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2344@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/uadBmzpd9bYn4VYZKIcBmIeIUH8>
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: 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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2344#issuecomment-455429150

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status