Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTT variance may be included in threshold (#2213)

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

ianswett commented on this pull request.

FWIW, I'm still pretty skeptical that RTTVar and reordering are correlated in a meaningful way.  Before we land this, I'd like to see something, anecdotal or otherwise, that indicates that's true sometimes?  Or a stronger theoretical argument than in the issue.

> @@ -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

If we're going to do this, I'd highly prefer adding variance to the list "using other reordering thresholds, including absolute thresholds, those including RTT variance, or those from similar previous connections.  Using a lower multiplier reduces..."

I added similar previous connections, because I think that's probably a fairly fruitful direction if someone wanted to work on it.

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-186979342