Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove ack_delay_exponent TP (#2670)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 06:26 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 1A8F31200B4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.605 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 gk4Uuazg4iyC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4971F120086 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:26:43 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1560320803; bh=pHBYJSChIixfAsV7H6ZukAXTilmHGTPOSpDTVyIZEns=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qW0nBVAjoWs9Y+Uw3UcZQBGQx8Iy15VnA2YYXuD4bKry9wiU8YHhqeq3ArTAIq0+J LfBxnCWSvpgNFhRBiCH8j78Le2ZcDWOP6+hiz/liIH+tBdTk7DahxmycK+QxAmfNYB /zhHrhs5yYFSX6Dff/Jcx6LIN14s9ypdyrTvjx5E=
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5HU6ZEJEM4KC2KCYV3BXG2HEVBNHHBUTIZ2M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2670/501138176@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2670@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2670@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove ack_delay_exponent TP (#2670)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d009b239a521_c803fee28acd964711b3"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/5r7aCH5kUm2xeYq5cgktZ9uX-Ic>
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:26:47 -0000

So I'm seeing a few concerns highlighted here:

1. Some people would like to keep the delay encoding small (Ian); others don't care if it is bigger (Christian).
2. Native time is often in milliseconds.  Having to encoding microseconds with an exponent gets close (2^10 =~ 10^3), but it's not great (Kazuho).

The strength of feeling isn't strong, but my impression is that we have three options.

a. Use an exponent (leave as-is).
b. Move to multiplication instead of exponentiation.
c. Drop any scaling factor and encode the value directly.

As I mentioned before, there seems to be slightly more interest in option b, but it's not a strong one.

Of those who don't seem to like option b, Christian seems to prefer c and a over b and Ian seems happy with a.

Is that a fair assessment?

-- 
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/2670#issuecomment-501138176