Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmation condition (#2881)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 09 July 2019 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016A61203A1 for <>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 nhvXmEA_k-jm for <>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D32461200B6 for <>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 02:47:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1562665649; bh=d1SQusTbUJIo4eaglNs5S83KVlU8PovM54xuI+Abp5k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=KBS9J3HPe+BmHBRhypHHQjjg63tihZD/YyPw/Lx+78M4Il+MKBlOO5zGQ187ZWNfl /XO17rCEq94vsYwV8UY/Grp4k3xLqYL8SYQ0Dze6UbjeoLCcaN8On95vLZFUsP7kQw COedFOv8DPiApVSrA7QczV7PJAi7LN22cycD/3AY=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2881/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explain asymmetric confirmation condition (#2881)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d2462b13d428_26a63fd988acd96497282f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 09:47:33 -0000

> The problem is not the size of the 1-RTT PING, but the fact that we might already be congestion limited once we try to send it.

Right, but this is a condition where 1-RTT packets might not be processed by the server.  The client can't know if the server really needs the Handshake packets or the 1-RTT packet.  If we want to exempt anything from CWND, wouldn't we need to exempt both?

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