Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss Application-Limited Sending (#1637)

[Nick Banks <[e-mail]>]

nibanks commented on this pull request.



> @@ -999,6 +996,18 @@ paces the sending of any packets in excess of the initial congestion window.
 A sender MAY implement alternate mechanisms to update its congestion window
 after idle periods, such as those proposed for TCP in {{?RFC7661}}.
 
+## Application Limited Sending
+
+The congestion window should not be increased in slow start or congestion
+avoidance when it is not fully utilized.  The congestion window could be
+under-utilized due to insufficient application data to send or flow control
+limits.
+
+When the sender is pacing(see {{pacing}}) packets, the sender may be unable
+to use the full congestion window for a period of time after receiving an
+ACK, due to pacing.  In this case, the sender should not consider themselves
+application limited and should allow the congestion window to increase.

Maybe it's just a case of too much detail. I think folks should understand that just because a pacing interval has currently been used up, that's not considered application limited? So, maybe, just don't have this at all? 

-- 
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/1637#discussion_r247978038