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

Jana Iyengar <> Tue, 16 June 2020 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298B93A086E for <>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 jAbpYzHWuQJP for <>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0CBE3A086D for <>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1074B6A0854 for <>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1592346336; bh=AACj0w+3sz0H4lWwuxqdo6IRymMxwGN7m5fYBBnppos=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DdLeepsdtTZNBFR61C6grVlQquQy8vzcanG5KLvJMafF50VnKzdR7NGY5W/W4WqWl fW2sgjXBkzX6DBvsYTcmqadKeLUFIPWGIL1yvlJRtXoiM3UFNND1yNTdf/X+b7t4dh /RnrrIFlUQeT5SOl5yoGt7hdPHw6oMC2Cz0YJTjQ=
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:25:36 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3766/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
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_5ee946e023bd_56513fbfa14cd95c1296fc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:25:38 -0000

@janaiyengar commented on 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
+advertises the number of bytes it is prepared to receive on a given stream and

advertises the limit of total bytes it is prepared to receive on a given stream or

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