IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reset min_rtt on persistent congestion (#3927)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 01:09 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 6C98A3A0778 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:09:20 -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 v4_H6RezWJQV for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
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 30F783A0774 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-1b8c660.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-1b8c660.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.18.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FD68C04D6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595380158; bh=MP95TSweu+I+7WfwRrCfsR6AQISDjWvflwjJr77sMTA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=LOioxiu/F8iOogmr9yq4P2vbMYLcdu8X9lEIH6q53Nj5hI6f4ljtlQaIFsLJHqBer N1RbmkRdnp7/7TqWl5NQrrEzrT87pe+RtxC/nfy/flRFXeNZM4mpEac9vDUtAZkdlY zA8/7FK0z38h1aaDL3yQSA6O7fm+pRsX9u6vpShM=
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:09:18 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZG2JCRPESFNZISO255ENZL5EVBNHHCPCHN7U@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3927/662184049@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3927@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3927@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reset min_rtt on persistent congestion (#3927)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f1791be7288b_68f3f91f62cd9641356a2"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/9D0gKPKIqXV9L3mK8ZArQLXxeeU>
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 01:09:20 -0000

Jana made a good argument that persistent congestion could be declared due to an overly small RTT, so resetting min_rtt could avoid an endpoint repeatedly declaring persistent congestion.  That being said, the RTT samples also need to be too low to spuriously declare persistent congestion, so this is increasingly sounding like an attack scenario, rather than having a poor estimate of min_rtt.

I think a SHOULD is Ok now, but I'd like to state the best rationale we have for why it's a SHOULD and neither a MUST or a MAY.

-- 
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/3927#issuecomment-662184049

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email