Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Other congestion controllers (#1633)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

martinthomson approved this pull request.

Yeah, this is good.  Wondering if we need to say more, but I'll leave that to your discretion.

>  
 QUIC hosts MUST NOT send packets if they would increase bytes_in_flight
-(defined in {{vars-of-interest}}) beyond the available congestion window, unless
-the packet is a probe packet sent after the TLP or RTO timer expires, as
-described in {{tlp}} and {{rto}}.
+(defined in {{vars-of-interest}}) beyond the available congestion window,
+unless the packet is a probe packet sent after the TLP or RTO timer expires,
+as described in {{tlp}} and {{rto}}.
+
+Implementations MAY use other congestion control algorithms.

Do we also need to say that endpoints don't need to use the same congestion controller?  IOW, "Implementations MAY use a different congestion control algorithm, even within the same connection.  The signals that QUIC provides for congestion control are generic and can support different congestion control regimens."

-- 
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/1633#pullrequestreview-143008398