Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] DPLPMTU merge tweaks (#3702)

Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com> Thu, 28 May 2020 15:51 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 E80113A0FE3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 JVf5s1cYErlw for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A49843A0FDE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f62aa54.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f62aa54.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F29B960301 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590681073; bh=RIG/vXmaoUfVSbnMlXH4gj+2zf4waJpJcluJxow0I2E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=meszQNSM2THa7m55m17AEQPPhFNJ2SmyypSg9fM54YS1MW0K2PMD9EIk0KKdtj9s3 nljaga6QbYu51yC3KkCsuVEjTpyrtO9sKSwgFzoRjPwUpl6LrFGsoLqztNr+IbGnWj n4JBrs0cW+WrYbMqYQ3rgqLci291ddO+wsxb4EfA=
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:51:13 -0700
From: Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5UIIKB5GV54KW3X4N43O7PDEVBNHHCKRI54E@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3702/review/420252900@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3702@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3702@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] DPLPMTU merge tweaks (#3702)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecfddf17016c_9313fbacf4cd9601267dd"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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/9gRLw6kvwCxz_LMsXPwwP1jGnt8>
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: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:51:16 -0000

@gorryfair commented on this pull request.



> +
+From the perspective of DPLPMTUD, QUIC transport is an acknowledged
+packetization layer (PL). A sender can therefore enter the DPLPMTUD BASE state
+when the QUIC connection handshake has been completed.
+
+
+### Sending QUIC DPLPMTUD Probe Packets
+
+DPLPMTU probe packets are ack-eliciting packets.  Probe packets that use the
+PADDING frame implement "Probing using padding data", as defined in
+Section 4.1 of {{!DPLPMTUD}}.  Endpoints could limit the content of probe
+packets to PING and PADDING frames as packets that are larger than the current
+maximum packet size are more likely to be dropped by the network.
+
+DPLPMTU probe packets consume congestion window, which could delay subsequent
+transmission by an application.

Section 3, bullet 7 of DPLPMTUD clarifies this as: "Loss of a probe packet SHOULD NOT be treated as an indication of congestion and SHOULD NOT trigger a congestion control reaction". Maybe this could be added as clarification?

-- 
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/3702#discussion_r431942184