IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Byte counting at Congestion avoidance (#3917)

Junho Choi <notifications@github.com> Thu, 16 July 2020 22:22 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 A77FE3A0DA8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 XX48Szf9YuWT for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E87213A0DAA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-9bcb4a1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-9bcb4a1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.84]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF80C6E1E1C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594938134; bh=jdwocoG3n5AGiwPSYX2KJcKpYxiMnkqpdp/duwTJE+U=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AYs/4bMWvS6W8raSETpazKC4DD5Tt9tQyC03KxTaYDpjW6JKNEfLS9YQBCrSKA7kl xb60nCDqtSUgkm4hzLqUB9vibp7SLChIF28PNW9exJyIjbqqu3FfBPO+dd9X/qJd08 TVUq8lB/oHzYLSItRyaz7ZXJN8hDp+ExISdVDuhs=
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:22:14 -0700
From: Junho Choi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3GDOWCIXAHMJQ6DKF5DS2BNEVBNHHCOPRYC4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3917/c659706920@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3917@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3917@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Byte counting at Congestion avoidance (#3917)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f10d316ce1bc_c853f8a296cd96c1269ba"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: junhochoi
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/7iaONrLkooOEW9dzqcnvIWTXyhA>
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 22:22:19 -0000

> I'm not sure this is necessary, since we don't specify the variables as integers, but if we were going to make a change, I'd prefer the CWND increment in bytes rather than max_datagram_size, since it's a smoother increase.

If we increase CWND in bytes (let say 10 x 1/10 mss, rather than 1 full mss), is it resulting too many small sending packets?

-- 
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/3917#issuecomment-659706920

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status