Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Usage of "epoch" term in recovery draft (example code in appendixes) (#2566)

Kazuho Oku <> Sat, 30 March 2019 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E859412006A for <>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 X1EsvVghTWwW for <>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD9FD120043 for <>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:29:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1553912955; bh=eCWcpqWhOvxkWIaYlpnBpS3p/mBBv0fN9W9hd4ukO2c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=diMaLKaNYDhaJ8DbE3WCqtN8LSmF0RpJ3o38O0zEOm4JKBtDyR8+ZfRvpUtLpRfCf x+puGSo8rJu9Af14U9DY4qSAtZKqgMfGgZQYjNB7an8mFp1fImyF2TnWV2Ot2KFHe1 pXKoJErdiutPVpIsbegq0arvdtgpVGr71N18NfHA=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2566/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Usage of "epoch" term in recovery draft (example code in appendixes) (#2566)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9ed47b31f53_53583fea4fad45c0138376"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 02:29:19 -0000

> is only mentioned (as "recovery epoch" and "congestion epoch") in the sample code in the -recovery appendices.
> It is defined and discussed in the DTLS RFC, however.

Doesn't "epoch" used in the sample code in -recovery have different meaning than that used in DTLS? IIUC, the recovery draft is talking about the distinction of each loss event by using the term.

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