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

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

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