picoquic — Deliberately tight MAX_DATA and MAX_STREAM_DATA

Pass

Handled it: respected the window without sending a BLOCKED frame, which §4.1 permits.

The client did what the clause requires.

What was measured

Client

picoquic — picoquic + picotls, 8162550

Test

Deliberately tight MAX_DATA and MAX_STREAM_DATA — q-flow-control

Clause

RFC 9000 §4 (SHOULD)

Class

discretionary — The RFC permits either behaviour; the report says which was chosen.

Required behaviour

Respect the limit. Announcing the stall with DATA_BLOCKED or STREAM_DATA_BLOCKED is a SHOULD in §4.1, not a MUST, so a client that stays silent is still conformant.

Measured

2026-09-18

Reproduce it

The suite is the judge, so the reproduction is to point the same client at the same test and let the server report what it saw.

SESSION=$(curl -sX POST https://conformance.pqcrypta.com/session | jq -r .id)
# then drive picoquic at the test URL and read the verdict:
curl -s https://conformance.pqcrypta.com/report/$SESSION.json | jq '.results["q-flow-control"]'