Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Idle Timer Can Fire Even with Outstanding Data to Send (#2744)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
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 68D651201CC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 y3AeyKdicmQz for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-10.smtp.github.com (out-10.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B89E7120184 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 03:10:51 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558606252; bh=RPH/zUhjVet6mjTVlH7ePPnu3S3HXxw3TsiNht+LkXk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qPowdr6o9CIiT3sqgKZvVdf+FgWYwJxmxVCGNgmtWVkciNcTkCjombb1SFYG0t/Pk 2MMs4zAisosgkzgCB6j2L1uNkCfSIa1/eQpSsZHetAQS/GZiyHmy2mRQpblh7AFPch 63CaE44Ku0KyMO4QcATZKSLM707lpyel3CMsCZxI=
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4A3LEUTW6NGOA5IGN26OSCXEVBNHHBVJMHUM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2744/495156791@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2744@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2744@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Idle Timer Can Fire Even with Outstanding Data to Send (#2744)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ce671abca642_6e2e3fe39d2cd95c13743c"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/1masLVO15UbvxcCdUCYkZ_VhjWo>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 10:11:05 -0000

Thinking about this, another solution would be to continue to send a *blocked frame, while in the blocked state. Even if the peer acknowledged the first blocked frame, if you're still blocked, you send it again. Personally, for my implementation, this would be the easiest thing to implement.

I don't think the spec should make any requirements in this area, but I do think it should call this problem out and possibly make a recommendation.

-- 
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/2744#issuecomment-495156791