Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] BLOCKED, SHOULD, and retransmission (#924)

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 02:52:35 +0000 (UTC)

Fixes #452, #65.

Sending BLOCKED is a SHOULD (not a MUST), since it's a debug mechanism and not vital to protocol functionality.  Clarified retransmission rules to say that you SHOULD retransmit if the limit hasn't changed since the frame was sent, and not otherwise.  (If it changed and you're blocked again, you presumably sent a new frame already.)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924

-- Commit Summary --

  * BLOCKED, SHOULD, and retransmission

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (40)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:02:04 +0000 (UTC)

ianswett approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#pullrequestreview-76318803

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:06:19 +0000 (UTC)

sgtm, but I'm still wondering if we should include the byte offset / max stream id in those debugging frames. It seems like we're making interpretation of these frame unnecessarily hard by having the receiver guess these values.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#issuecomment-344132175

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:25:50 +0000 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion Marten.  Given we acknowledge MAX_STREAM_DATA frames and such, I think we get most of the information we need, but I could be wrong.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#issuecomment-344134984

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:29:09 +0000 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's impossible, but you'd need a data structure keeping tracking of sent MAX_[DATA, STREAM_DATA, STREAM_ID] frames and which of them was acked. There would still be some uncertainty, since it's not guaranteed that the ACK for those frames is received before or at the same time as the debugging frame.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#issuecomment-344135455

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:00:16 +0000 (UTC)

I don't think it would be unreasonable to package the offset or stream ID in question that triggered sending the frame.  That could also help the other side understand whether you're blocked because they misunderstimicated the window you would need, or if the packet containing their update was simply delayed and you should be fine now.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#issuecomment-344139580

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:01:54 +0000 (UTC)

>From the feedback here it sounds like this is worth writing a separate PR. I'll submit one soon. Don't want to block the merge of this one.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#issuecomment-344139827

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:04:53 +0000 (UTC)

Split it to a second issue -- feel free to submit a PR against it.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#issuecomment-344140191

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:21:19 +0000 (UTC)

martinthomson approved this pull request.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#pullrequestreview-76348213

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:21:35 +0000 (UTC)

Merged #924.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/924#event-1340253463