IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why mandate stream creation order?

Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> Thu, 15 June 2017 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jri@google.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 5BC7C127735 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 fQG9tdhCcXLu for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E2BB127601 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 83so14253402pfr.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ro4oM1fxlfzaMpQgusWv4FOzZd8x0NMKynzejyG3spc=; b=YS6DgnFLvKO8+RdIUoLap9xmEc4vCRW8Ed+C8pbR02wFY4P2+W48FM8JHbmp6LQZqO HUrQJxeUgK0aPZpwLnpRd8USphYjEky/lPk9L2kh5zzDTSY1hPDp5qVaek66ikPgpvJy D2358BWCrB0GZ99CtZo/RJZtzViWJgKHn3rXmxlrpw4J0WgR5bDKhQg8JN1yveC2ZE74 Xegyo2OPnw/m0rpaUX2yTtuRad+FxPLqZUqzl2zf6RqdnXUhfpDQU8gikT0ChOjxEtIT d7k8xN6PzJLeg2Nv5br/P9PNdWnhWYFPbXUJQkkF6O68Dt4yd8ImkccWHmawusHCpuSK inrg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ro4oM1fxlfzaMpQgusWv4FOzZd8x0NMKynzejyG3spc=; b=aZOc0VvhqOAcvvzxGn+RWYfEUjT4WRRZEnn0y595Tpv6GmaEVFDVlBneVosg+nnrBM PiKsgbN9fFVJ//F3uw8jbziIeODEhdU92vV1L9kHEzYZEd5jhSElYpgRvrCV2aoHpFVt WVdQqTV69NVGcNw2KhZ24YYbQUzkEHbtgArTQ6BMEf2Ma4VxBeWrCOmXKqZ6P2bOtKtC SKdMYOFEb6LRoB66jBR3ZahfKJeoaoHBEmQaZWXd9m+rGIIZnMEBbc7FwcqRCaj7CuvG 0dLfNfsfqraHaI29jlVwUHGi/vuK7VpAlwP34jh5Y8gFAJP8z3A/enRBeR0bCQHEyUVz yNPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOx/LfXWlMUe4mLMttRXxyQ7eCzpPOiayESa07idvk76la5FYUWS mAIzPTjAIvSpBX1vW2KJdwtXXIz7CsLiu7k=
X-Received: by 10.84.175.65 with SMTP id s59mr9059907plb.20.1497570115703; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.179.39 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <592ee006.d5a0370a.621c9.06bf@mx.google.com>
References: <592ee006.d5a0370a.621c9.06bf@mx.google.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 23:41:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGD1bZZaKCXb0Cbib5FJWYcPNHumiM01=peYqK3zeODrBx+D9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why mandate stream creation order?
To: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
Cc: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c119722c63275055208361d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/ERglMUpFFz8Q1N1-83tNRuG6qCM>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 23:41:58 -0000

Thanks for the issue, Dmitri, I've created Issue #634
<https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/634> to track this.

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Dmitri Tikhonov <
dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> Section 10.1 of draft-ietf-quic-transport-03 states that “Streams MUST be
> created in sequential order.”  My question is: why mandate stream
> creation order, since the other side may receive out-of-order packets?  Let
> the implementation do what it wants with Stream IDs – as long as it does
> not go over the limit, all should be well.
>
>
>
> This phrase is a holdover from the previous version; this requirement
> seems to be unnecessary since issue 435
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/435> has been resolved.
>
>
>
>    - Dmitri.
>
>
>
> P.S.  I have read CONTRIBUTING.md
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md> and
> decided that mailing list is the way to ask this question, rather than
> opening a GitHub issue.  If this is incorrect, please let me know.
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email