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

["Aron ." <[e-mail]>]

This is interesting.  Is there a way for QUIC peer to tell which protocol
over QUIC is used?  In other words, at which point do I realize that it's
not HTTP/QUIC I am talking to?  Is it for upper-level code to figure out?

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Aron,
>
> Apologies for getting to this late -- the IETF kept me busy.
>
> [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?
>>
>
> The second bullet point is about any application-chosen stream. An
> application may choose to not exempt any stream if there are no special
> streams.
>
> This need not be negotiated on the wire, but can be known for any given
> application. Specifically, the http-mapping draft is the document which, in
> the current design, should say that stream 3 should be excluded from
> connection-level flow control.
>
> - jana
>
>