Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit CWND increase in slow start (#3232)

ianswett <> Wed, 27 November 2019 06:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832E11200F1 for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:05:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U_3tAohpHGtH for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:05:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ABDC1200EC for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:05:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:05:45 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574834745; bh=b9KYnED+CHj2Bl43nL4wJBtA4tHfh1TRteRYKDSjjoE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vg7VarMPTUDDgDgGYU4zKDfnFZzS6VpfmgOkyRUYRAGaSvIcug2yI723S/pbYEKV5 By0QiM3zpS7cZls7iRT+chmQn7/jFAe4DL7t7LXpG468k0uMkwsIyK6l+CIfaTUEOk +002FtHDvoFBWTLKqECfX++/zmrEk+TyaJBzBZAA=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3232/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit CWND increase in slow start (#3232)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dde12397b989_4f5a3ff19a2cd960789594"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:05:47 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -769,7 +769,10 @@ Implementations MUST either use pacing or limit such bursts to the initial
 congestion window, which is recommended to be the minimum of
 10 * max_datagram_size and max(2* max_datagram_size, 14720)), where
 max_datagram_size is the current maximum size of a datagram for the connection,
-not including UDP or IP overhead.
+not including UDP or IP overhead. An implementation that does not use pacing
+SHOULD limit the congestion window increase during slow start to

In order to meet the previous criteria, how about "An implementation that doest not use pacing MAY limit the congestion window increase during slow start to 2 * max_datagram_size_ per ACK frame received {{?RFC3465}} in order to help limit bursts to the  initial congestion window."

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: