Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Idle timeout editorial fixes (#3444)

Mike Bishop <> Wed, 12 February 2020 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903DC120274 for <>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:29:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 L53g-AMonaqN for <>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE7C712002F for <>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43DC1C048C for <>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:29:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581535786; bh=G7CiBzHbknQVe9TUa1ax6Ofv5Kv8RogCtOdP4PnhaP4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Yzbeh6McUcF26KKTfxfDx9yYfkvLqhHbXjzB/QmfUodr6+5eF61QSfAtLmhpXAT8L s0E3XdblpXhRYtqGpjlUCXOsVLsR+ggW8J2d7TcU9DgbOzWf5rcKuTkl4YwmQk6j1r rw2tZsVEKBW9OTaXBM7Sejixv8ybZhf+SGNKXZR4=
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:29:46 -0800
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3444/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Idle timeout editorial fixes (#3444)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e44522ad4170_63b3fc988ccd968257969"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:29:51 -0000

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2420,20 +2420,21 @@ close ({{immediate-close}}) if it abandons the connection prior to the effective
 An endpoint restarts its idle timer when a packet from its peer is received
-and processed successfully.  The idle timer is also restarted when sending
-an ack-eliciting packet (see {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}), but only if no other
-ack-eliciting packets have been sent since last receiving a packet.  Restarting
-when sending packets ensures that connections do not prematurely time out when
-initiating new activity.  An endpoint might need to send packets to avoid an
-idle timeout if it is unable to send application data due to being blocked on
-flow control limits; see {{flow-control}}.
+and processed successfully.  The idle timer is also restarted when sending the
+first ack-eliciting packet (see {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}) after receiving a packet.
+Only restarting when sending after receipt of a packet ensures the idle timeout
+is not excessively lengthened past the time the peer's timeout has expired.

I think the change is in response to [my comment](, that you also need to clarify why it's not sufficient to reset it on every packet you send.  Basically, we've chosen a more complicated condition than "on receive" or "on send," and we should justify why the simpler conditions don't work.

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