IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [QUIC] Why not be explicit about Stream 3 flow control exception?

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Mon, 14 November 2016 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28216129417 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:32:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 qB0NBotOKk6q for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0111.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4A6412941A for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:32:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=s34vxbvtI++3hWnKwDIWpUv851jqSFkYCHfb3BYaqw4=; b=frrtvWhcyGqHIrKR8iHMcZE0lqNDoPDOgiXkENKadEuf33yysn//IMQy6OYdUzEQkwSHkhA4bCOqMiIpwsC1dJTJnJFIPkJqeyMOtLMlchakA7FZG5tgMv2NDsop16FEaWrierYXVvCmoX65kp2/a+RRICQIIpDpFk8P6wj5DVI=
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.15) by BN6PR03MB2707.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.721.10; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:32:17 +0000
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) by BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0707.015; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:32:16 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: "Aron ." <aron.schats@gmail.com>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [QUIC] Why not be explicit about Stream 3 flow control exception?
Thread-Index: AQHSPrgGfIvDjV/wrUKopO/WTiVcT6DZD+aA
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:32:16 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB27089D89B29AAED5C6758CB187BC0@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAGudDpPfgQCWKXVv0v2B2MT8kkPnis2monE1ZGWRfHjyd_Tqmg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGudDpPfgQCWKXVv0v2B2MT8kkPnis2monE1ZGWRfHjyd_Tqmg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [31.133.144.196]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR03MB2707; 7:9igOCT6WtzpRrg4VBcWASekbEW7K61MD4UYwbmBFVnted+sFJDog12CYhlCmUCJbZJ19GeiWjaApDDtNdXv9Z9K924EsmHF0W9eDY8RKyQ9W/AAyx7MgQCpunglYCRf8mC7t/lU+NLZ/wIzHcVdzLt8NQ2IsYyVlbK8xqU0sCMrSqLCswshQFWnVkMdLVPWVc7U+Ydb+2ar7TS7eunB58fPqLcRvu/ZuXRPztTrSAqtj+xPEeYlX3+uTBpozPd7FCKlcfwOIxbZi/va50RrZgfxJBKohLoX9dPvsXu3PGfW0HzahjxrrPOU6tzmmU3CloLcDZEfTdoYxk+V7Gt3oRGPd/1UQco32VcMMOPMBEBER+4FQcrF+Qvi4JdyJlPKS
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 56c53f8c-52f8-492d-6c0e-08d40cde16ba
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:BN6PR03MB2707;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR03MB27075696BC25AA2E15FD87B987BC0@BN6PR03MB2707.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6060326)(6045074)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6046074)(6061324); SRVR:BN6PR03MB2707; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2707;
x-forefront-prvs: 0126A32F74
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(66066001)(10090500001)(5660300001)(106116001)(105586002)(99286002)(106356001)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(7846002)(3846002)(2501003)(33656002)(87936001)(10290500002)(9686002)(6116002)(68736007)(8676002)(7736002)(5005710100001)(102836003)(790700001)(2906002)(86612001)(101416001)(8990500004)(97736004)(74316002)(92566002)(5001770100001)(3280700002)(3660700001)(2950100002)(86362001)(76176999)(2900100001)(54356999)(229853002)(122556002)(50986999)(7696004)(189998001)(77096005)(76576001)(107886002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2707; H:BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN6PR03MB27089D89B29AAED5C6758CB187BC0BN6PR03MB2708namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Nov 2016 22:32:16.7399 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR03MB2707
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/C2Qd0_LtLiRIX9horkoE28UnyQA>
Subject: Re: [QUIC] Why not be explicit about Stream 3 flow control exception?
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:32:22 -0000

Presumably because other protocols might need more, or different, or no, streams to be exempted.  The thing that’s actually missing is the definition of a mechanism for the application protocol to tell the transport which streams to exclude.  (And I’d be inclined to have something sent on the wire so the other side knows what you’re doing, though there’s a case to be made that application protocol agreement includes both sides agreeing to make the same call into their QUIC stack.)

From: QUIC [mailto:quic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aron .
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:45 AM
To: quic@ietf.org
Subject: [QUIC] Why not be explicit about Stream 3 flow control exception?

Hello,

[draft-hamilton-quic-transport-protocol-01] states (p. 35):

o The crypto handshake stream, Stream 1, MUST NOT be subject to
congestion control or connection-level flow control, but MUST be
subject to stream-level flow control.
o An application MAY exclude specific stream IDs from connection-level
flow control. If so, these streams MUST NOT be subject to
connection-level flow control.

The second bullet point is obviously about Stream 3.  Seeing that there is no way(?) to negotiate which streams are to be excluded, why not spell out that Streams 1 and 3 are not subject to connection-level congestion control?

  Aron.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email