IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Sun, 12 July 2020 17:12 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 806983A02BE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, 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 0LVm3W0DtLdX for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 275A33A00E4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
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 44485E002A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594573972; bh=y7dcbkB+A/jOk813SFXsEv/Rv73ChzzkjLv7byWp2AI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=a9ITpOoNTDRXI1fXUh1qB+X9Uc5VYDTbUZQzgMjQCgnouQI2/VW84hlI84BlfEqix J5NwABFtaRX325U5V18mijQinN+bAPCZPcAtkd+2od+A36gaQVyQwyfcCe06QxdSYN MPLd2SN7q9IO5TBetVvq4Ccvai6iGxZmvtjy3OZU=
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:12:52 -0700
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK67SPGD6TEGVDBWVRF5C4SZJEVBNHHCN2JJGQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842/657250754@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f0b4494352be_2d723ffa806cd9686167e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
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/8W21OdBqZDINBrlP4xHm6uH6KnU>
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: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:12:55 -0000

@pravb it would be nice if congestion response allowed better choices than "continue as nothing happened" and "go back to start as if nothing was known about the path". I think the endpoints have some knowledge about the past of the path, and also an indication that this knowledge could be wrong. How wrong might depend on timing, e.g., time since past measurements. I could see applying some Bayesian logic there. But this is clearly research.

-- 
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/3842#issuecomment-657250754

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email