Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Proposed change to #1965 (#2212)

janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 03:40 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 37B2012D4E6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:40:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.064
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, 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 HnF786zVfovW for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A218130E0A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:40:45 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1545277245; bh=s2bNJjVYYeOUkmppLr5ysYNnr38s7RyMcW5cCoN0WOI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wi7znJNsu07Y2LIjlaWcXHFzx44FaYhb8o1jG6MNYDIE/1PAeAaS26cPbPxBZIGVC RBznCXrWpsGuLe+9dmvhRKW8IAJjGXQHN3reI9PyKerL7YBFkWzfG4fysb5p2/1Iiv ot7TvBABd9CtksocSu00dCn9/CpfRLIgUNt4o7xU=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba838e68c5bb68216f20014172629171a32bdaaab92cf000000011832d13d92a169ce176a63e1@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2212/review/186839364@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2212@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2212@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Proposed change to #1965 (#2212)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1b0f3de108b_5dd33fec2e2d45c433192e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/2aq847vIqmBJHez8rQ2b5LbaFhM>
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, 20 Dec 2018 03:40:50 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -496,11 +496,14 @@ MAY use alternate strategies for determining the content of probe packets,
 including sending new or retransmitted data based on the application's
 priorities.
 
-If no new data or unacknowledged data is available to send, an ack-eliciting
-packet SHOULD be sent.  Sending a retransmittable frame ensures that any in
-flight packets are acknowledged or declared lost in a timely manner.  If no
-ack-eliciting packet is sent, any packets currently in flight should be
-declared lost to avoid repeatedly arming and firing the PTO timer.
+When a PTO timer expires, new or previously-sent data may not available to send,
+and data may still be in flight.  Under these conditions, a sender MUST mark any
+packets still in flight as lost.  This can happen for example when data is sent
+on a stream which is then reset by a sender, and a PTO timer expires after this
+stream is reset.  A sender can be blocked from sending new data in the future if

Hm, good point. So how can we end up in this situation then? Do we have any example?

-- 
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/2212#discussion_r243148594