Return-Path: 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 D6436120236 for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 15:00:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 Xss350v4IMgv for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 15:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A21B12019B for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 15:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 15:00:13 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557266413; bh=ny4h7DwLp9sTU3BhKScEVomsfkZun+lHmnLz/EBUTVI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0fSasImzn3aW8N8k9Cn5S5QsHq53h069i8ExTHC9pEw4Vb9UBzAomkyIN2WBvGjgM jZoOzMEJQba+yv8ZvRFZowOCZDAS5q/cG/EmHwXs5HBla4Ek0T26GYBHXeB/KYt/Mq 0r5495JjoHEKtCUdegTFW6upDs86rXkQRO1NWOvs= From: Jana Iyengar Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Recovery Editorial Nits (#2667) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cd1ffed198c3_7a843f98056cd964178216"; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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: Tue, 07 May 2019 22:00:17 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5cd1ffed198c3_7a843f98056cd964178216 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit janaiyengar commented on this pull request. > @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms implicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamps are not available. +### Clearer Loss Epoch + +QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is +acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be filled, +and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does not ```suggestion and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch may not ``` > @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms implicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamps are not available. +### Clearer Loss Epoch + +QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is +acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be filled, +and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does not +end. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoch, QUIC may reduce ```suggestion end for several round trips. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoch, QUIC will reduce its ``` > @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms implicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamps are not available. +### Clearer Loss Epoch + +QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is +acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be filled, +and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does not +end. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoch, QUIC may reduce +congestion window multiple times in the same circumstances TCP only reduces ```suggestion congestion window correctly once for every round trip that experiences loss, while TCP may only reduce ``` -- 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/2667#pullrequestreview-234781864 ----==_mimepart_5cd1ffed198c3_7a843f98056cd964178216 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

=0D =0D
=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md:

=0D 
> @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms i=
mplicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on=0D
 TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamp=
s are=0D
 not available.=0D
 =0D
+### Clearer Loss Epoch=0D
+=0D
+QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is=0D
+acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be f=
illed,=0D
+and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does=
 not=0D
=0D =E2=AC=87=EF=B8=8F Suggested change=0D 
-and so if a segment is lost multiple times in=
 a row, the loss epoch does not=0D
+and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch may =
not=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md:

=0D 
> @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms i=
mplicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on=0D
 TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamp=
s are=0D
 not available.=0D
 =0D
+### Clearer Loss Epoch=0D
+=0D
+QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is=0D
+acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be f=
illed,=0D
+and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does=
 not=0D
+end. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoch,  QUIC may reduce=0D
=0D =E2=AC=87=EF=B8=8F Suggested change=0D 
-end. Because both reduce CWND only once per e=
poch,  QUIC may reduce=0D
+end for several round trips. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoc=
h,  QUIC will reduce its=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md:

=0D 
> @@ -214,6 +214,15 @@ Most TCP mechanisms i=
mplicitly attempt to infer transmission ordering based on=0D
 TCP sequence numbers - a non-trivial task, especially when TCP timestamp=
s are=0D
 not available.=0D
 =0D
+### Clearer Loss Epoch=0D
+=0D
+QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is=0D
+acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be f=
illed,=0D
+and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch does=
 not=0D
+end. Because both reduce CWND only once per epoch,  QUIC may reduce=0D
+congestion window multiple times in the same circumstances TCP only redu=
ces=0D
=0D =E2=AC=87=EF=B8=8F Suggested change=0D 
-congestion window multiple times in the same =
circumstances TCP only reduces=0D
+congestion window correctly once for every round trip that experiences l=
oss, while TCP may only reduce=0D
=0D =0D =0D

&m= dash;
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre= ad.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.3D""

=0D = ----==_mimepart_5cd1ffed198c3_7a843f98056cd964178216--