Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SHOULD implement adaptive packet threshold loss detection (#3571)

Jana Iyengar <> Thu, 09 April 2020 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917B83A0C23 for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z_8GhdF9NEQX for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE5C3A0C22 for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B668120B35 for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1586413041; bh=Ta4qzHLLn3BNw7BBA2sh/OwYbJTRyCaM7Vxn11rMLBU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0osKv6tr7LVMvq+20RbXvL/94QC9hq8I9Pg9FNnIt8Rl/Wip0OhSG6B3+NtMzANux eErogt+bWjFiWUnUHvFzoQuZ73k3d0wSYjnHppuwPCn08i1rTNcyPC6BprZZhVPctD HWpTFV20qpmxpUiG1N9zrVXcht0VMP1EtYFfw3l0=
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 23:17:21 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3571/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SHOULD implement adaptive packet threshold loss detection (#3571)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8ebdf15797_1a0f3fa6fc4cd960176759"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 06:17:25 -0000

I would like to not see a dependency on the RACK draft here. If we want this to become a SHOULD, we really need to spell out what an implementation SHOULD do more precisely and not just point to RACK.

That said, I'm not convinced that we should do a SHOULD here. I understand that you see an improvement (that might be worth noting in the spec), which is a perfectly good reason encourage others to implement and experiment, but why is a MAY not adequate, given that we have limited experience?

I also am not convinced that this is important enough to warrant a design change at this late stage. Do you think this performance impact is significant enough to argue for this change?

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: