Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] avoid setting the loss timer when amplification limited (#3596)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Fri, 24 April 2020 02:45 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 784813A0E34 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 19:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 IV0yIH0RQ3gl for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 19:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6B713A0E2A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 19:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.57]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588456A1C7D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 19:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1587696349; bh=ij3keYtJIBC5EycmhD6TDeHQ62KZ48TGYJnltzldcEU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BINY34D5M4RZysmlC/mIw/j0pKSgTJK5/4/wnLMBtChFsJgxRJcERZHvr6aoszrfB 7p50i6lCa+c0L+bAaEU0qYSHdN3Uq7mofoRkAe5kYUPxkGpaNvb3WtInA75WkObQMI /NE+gNnfDoGTXzdW163AUPaTjWtEUiSFASmMvtU8=
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 19:45:49 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZYYGSZ5J2YRUVVIQ54VYZ53EVBNHHCIE6WVA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3596/c618771240@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3596@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3596@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] avoid setting the loss timer when amplification limited (#3596)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ea252dd4948b_1adb3f93f22cd95c1142059"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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/3yvcfkdC0eZ0fTDcmD_2iPHiosQ>
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: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 02:45:58 -0000

This change only makes a difference if the server sent multiple Initial packets, and only some of them were acknowledged. In that case, you'd usually set an early retransmit timer. Of course, if you're amplification limited, you wouldn't be able to send out anything on timer expiration.

I don't think this makes a big difference in practice. I just found it easier to reason about the amplification limit this way: "If amplication limited, never set a timer."

-- 
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/3596#issuecomment-618771240