Return-Path: X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2856130DF1 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:46:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 2OcinyABlVOA for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:46:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11057130DE0 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:46:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:46:34 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1542138394; bh=gt38bDl/Jxn27G7dwsnfcgNTjz3CC9tbKX7XcEXJcnA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=12Cmsyi5yyfPAEIOAOFvspaCDsC+uIt1ELe1kogWTy4x1FWFsqjqklkZrggFtBT8n LfmeeUBLPuD9EVC48DmGhirCSOyU3EOigAGwuBwZVBgrsX6Tpt140MKJwPe5FtQQmz yYA8+SYRHdlCVx1t4qKRC3bMuJJKa3M9jX67ELOE= From: ianswett Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Sender-Controlled Delayed ACK Ratio (#1978) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5beb2a1a5dfb_24d3fdca18d45c4106929"; 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 X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 19:46:37 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5beb2a1a5dfb_24d3fdca18d45c4106929 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit @janaiyengar , if we're not going to add a generic UPDATE_TRANSPORT_PARAMs frame, then I think it makes more sense to ONLY have an UPDATE_ACK_RATIO/DELAY/etc frame and not add any new transport params, since I think what we have now is good enough to complete the handshake? I'm favoring adding the ability to update two params: 1) MaxAckDelay (default 25ms) 2) MaxPacketsBeforeAck (currently always 2) - aka how many packets can be received before sending an acknowledgement. Even though gQUIC has had success with fraction of RTT, I think it's less robust than specifying an actual amount of time, and specifying an amount of time allows for more precise TLP and RTO timeouts, which is very nice. I agree there need to be bounds on how small an ack delay a sender can request and how small a MaxPacketsBeforeAck? I'd prefer a hard failure(ie: connection close) to a "I'm just not going to do what you ask and not tell you", so I'd prefer a transport param or other mechanism to communicate the MinMaxAckDelay for a connection and a rule that you can't request a MaxPacketsBeforeAck smaller than 2. -- 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/issues/1978#issuecomment-438410558 ----==_mimepart_5beb2a1a5dfb_24d3fdca18d45c4106929 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

@janaiyengar , if we're not going to add a generic UPDA= TE_TRANSPORT_PARAMs frame, then I think it makes more sense to ONLY have = an UPDATE_ACK_RATIO/DELAY/etc frame and not add any new transport params,= since I think what we have now is good enough to complete the handshake?=

I'm favoring adding the ability to update two params:

  1. MaxAckDelay (default 25ms)
  2. MaxPacketsBeforeAck (currently always 2) - aka how many packets can b= e received before sending an acknowledgement.

Even though gQUIC has had success with fraction of RTT, I think it's l= ess robust than specifying an actual amount of time, and specifying an am= ount of time allows for more precise TLP and RTO timeouts, which is very = nice.

I agree there need to be bounds on how small an ack delay a sender can= request and how small a MaxPacketsBeforeAck? I'd prefer a hard failure(= ie: connection close) to a "I'm just not going to do what you ask and not= tell you", so I'd prefer a transport param or other mechanism to communi= cate the MinMaxAckDelay for a connection and a rule that you can't reques= t a MaxPacketsBeforeAck smaller than 2.

&m= dash;
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre= ad.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub,= or mute the thread.3D""

= ----==_mimepart_5beb2a1a5dfb_24d3fdca18d45c4106929--