Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO probes are sent too frequently (#3546)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 02:51 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 362183A07E0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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_20=0.7, 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 PRIjjxwSN2AC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:51:34 -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 E58113A07DF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c53a806.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c53a806.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.45]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989B36A006F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585536692; bh=KPjMwZImz6Bq66O00nBdHVu/OOYQfjQT/lxokf8WXbw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LrOSLuh5FihzTbVZcaeDoENHYntU1UjaE75vLQE5jymqPS5LD8oMXQp5XGUfnZZO0 LssRGV0hR3GZKED5rdGwa+QKp+Upzval3gpJIZnp8yiYDrFCgGIKYFa2TyFRzkJaVB IcRcXvJ7xT3U04+Mgh516Uk3+usO9Hy07E5nLeuo=
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:51:32 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3PD3Z2EY6KXAJQOWF4RU73JEVBNHHCGDM7NY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3546/605754832@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3546@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3546@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO probes are sent too frequently (#3546)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e815eb4888fa_37bd3fa2d22cd96844926a"; 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/70IkzInvILh8pBDvQyFdAeaFFo8>
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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:51:35 -0000

So the operating principle here is that we are expecting progress to Handshake to be made, which means that we need to align with our existing logic that enables PTO in that case.

For reference, the check we use to enable PTO during the anti-amplification phase is the inverse of the following:

```
  if (no ack-eliciting packets in flight &&
      peer not awaiting address validation):
```

Which follows the "server at anti-amplification limit" check.  So maybe `(client && no ack-eliciting packets in flight && peer not awaiting address validation)` is the check you want rather than `is initial`.

-- 
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/3546#issuecomment-605754832