IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define AreAllPacketsLost() (#3290)

Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <notifications@github.com> Sat, 07 December 2019 01:36 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 C17DE120044 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:36:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_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] 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 4yc0kApmf5bg for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1123120033 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.92]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848E68C018A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:36:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1575682568; bh=+5v3hZEG9Ri3lmKES9S2IH/sGIfZFTBpQXTvxiuO3ZI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=s5YgGLIfoROw2eN+91vmtGNpau/Sar/0qfUnibh00DClKao13upak3mEjPMivAiD5 01NBsOGYmC3419CyGVFy11XHvKYq4IDYWKlFnPDZqcyPxBafZzUZZm1YMMRsDXItTr 0JKKYyCd+dJo1KRIcPL0PtOP//hQ+a4QUrJWtDDM=
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 17:36:08 -0800
From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK64YCBUFRUDEPO5UAN37A2IREVBNHHB7VVU2M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3290/review/328530106@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3290@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3290@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define AreAllPacketsLost() (#3290)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5deb020874dc5_382f3fb20b8cd96015292e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: tatsuhiro-t
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/6f7Tu5b7Ul0mPhQ1_ULx2277Gfo>
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: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 01:36:12 -0000

tatsuhiro-t commented on this pull request.



>       pto = smoothed_rtt + max(4 * rttvar, kGranularity) +
        max_ack_delay
      congestion_period = pto * kPersistentCongestionThreshold
      // Determine if all packets in the time period before the
      // newest lost packet, including the edges, are marked
      // lost
-     return AreAllPacketsLost(largest_lost_packet,
-                              congestion_period)
+     return congestion_period >
+       largest_lost_packet.time_sent - earliest_lost_packet.time_sent

Isn't it `congestion_period <= largest_lost_packet.time_sent - earliest_lost_packet.time_sent` because congestion_period is the threshold that defines duration of persistent congestion?

-- 
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/3290#discussion_r355089680

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email