Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTT variance may be included in threshold (#2213)
From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <[email-masked]>
Cc: Subscribed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 05:54:04 -0800
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -362,10 +362,10 @@ Using max(SRTT, latest_RTT) protects from the two following cases:
 * the latest RTT sample is higher than the SRTT, perhaps due to a sustained
   increase in the actual RTT, but the smoothed SRTT has not yet caught up.
 
-Implementers MAY experiment with using other reordering thresholds, including
-absolute thresholds, bearing in mind that a lower multiplier reduces reordering
-resilience and increases spurious retransmissions, and a higher multiplier
-increases loss detection delay.
+Implementers MAY experiment with including RTT variance in the threshold, or

To make this slightly harder still, Chromium's early experiments showed that loss was not correlated, but when an application is using the network, evidence shows loss is very correlated.  So I don't think we can understand the prevalence and nature of reordering in a network without using the network in a realistic way, such as HTTP.

-- 
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/pull/2213#discussion_r243278596