From nobody Fri Sep 4 15:07:44 2020 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 A2B683A0B82 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:07:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.101 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 GanKzurrgDG9 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 142413A0B8B for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from github-lowworker-56fcc46.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-56fcc46.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.102.32]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40471840D73 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:07:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1599257259; bh=zra24hwBnou8WBYoDhelqrpesl/LrTYyx964rWGc/TA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=kX/1MqZeiWXdktTbisvb9u1zNNEdvASF6senp0MjiG/ZQyVGWgi1WdsvdkyRDn523 jfvPUfeL56yhfPtCB1rhsJh/GRpMyGzljxEb9H8o464UdJgVqXe5kk2yC0h2oluS8B YXlfjqY1IgRjig3gEKbRXsao208KAJT9K0qJvM5c= Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:07:39 -0700 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] Proposed fix for #3987 (#4071) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f52baab300b5_241619f02537e"; 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: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 22:07:42 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5f52baab300b5_241619f02537e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit @janaiyengar requested changes on this pull request. I don't think this is quite right. max ack delay is useful in idle and closing/draining timeouts. I've suggested text changes, PTAL. > +The PTO includes the peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay. This is not +strictly necessary for the purposes of path validation, but defining +validation_timeout as a function of the PTO is convenient, since implementations +need to maintain a PTO value anyway. ```suggestion Note: : Using the PTO value here implicitly includes the peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay in the validation timeout period; see Section 6.2.1 of {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. This is not necessary for the purposes of path validation, since the peer is expected to respond to a PATH_CHALLENGE without delay; see {{path-response}}. However, defining the timeout period as a function of PTO is convenient, since implementations will maintain a PTO value anyway. ``` > +As defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, the PTO includes the peer's maximum expected +acknowledgement delay. This is not strictly necessary for the purposes of the +idle timeout, but defining it in this way is convenient, since implementations +need to maintain a PTO value anyway. ```suggestion Note: : Using the PTO value here implicitly includes the peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay in the idle timeout period; see Section 6.2.1 of {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. This ensures that the endpoint accounts for this known peer delay before declaring the connection as idle and closing it. ``` > +(PTO) interval as defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. Note that the PTO includes the +peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay. While not strictly necessary for +this purpose, it is convenient, since implementations need to maintain a PTO +value anyway. ```suggestion (PTO) interval as defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. Note: : Using the PTO value here implicitly includes the peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay in the closing and draining periods; see Section 6.2.1 of {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. This ensures that the endpoint takes this peer delay into account when waiting to discard subsequent packets sent by the peer. ``` > +As defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, the PTO includes the peer's maximum expected +acknowledgement delay. This is not strictly necessary for the purposes of the +idle timeout, but defining it in this way is convenient, since implementations +need to maintain a PTO value anyway. This one is deliberate -- we want to account for max ack delay. -- 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/4071#pullrequestreview-482947265 ----==_mimepart_5f52baab300b5_241619f02537e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0D

@janaiyengar requested changes on this pull request.

=0D =0D

I don't think this is quite right. max ack delay is useful in idle and= closing/draining timeouts. I've suggested text changes, PTAL.

=0D= =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

=0D 
> +The PTO includes the peer's maximum e=
xpected acknowledgement delay. This is not=0D
+strictly necessary for the purposes of path validation, but defining=0D
+validation_timeout as a function of the PTO is convenient, since impleme=
ntations=0D
+need to maintain a PTO value anyway.=0D
=0D =0D =E2=AC=87=EF=B8=8F Suggested change=0D 
-The PTO includes the peer's maximum expected =
acknowledgement delay. This is not=0D
-strictly necessary for the purposes of path validation, but defining=0D
-validation_timeout as a function of the PTO is convenient, since impleme=
ntations=0D
-need to maintain a PTO value anyway.=0D
+Note:=0D
+=0D
+: Using the PTO value here implicitly includes the peer's maximum expect=
ed=0D
+acknowledgement delay in the validation timeout period; see Section 6.2.=
1=0D
+of {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. This is not necessary for the purposes of path val=
idation,=0D
+since the peer is expected to respond to a PATH_CHALLENGE without delay;=
=0D
+see {{path-response}}. However, defining the timeout period as a functio=
n of PTO=0D
+is convenient, since implementations will maintain a PTO value anyway.=0D=
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

=0D 
> +As defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, the PTO =
includes the peer's maximum expected=0D
+acknowledgement delay. This is not strictly necessary for the purposes o=
f the=0D
+idle timeout, but defining it in this way is convenient, since implement=
ations=0D
+need to maintain a PTO value anyway.=0D
=0D =0D =E2=AC=87=EF=B8=8F Suggested change=0D 
-As defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, the PTO incl=
udes the peer's maximum expected=0D
-acknowledgement delay. This is not strictly necessary for the purposes o=
f the=0D
-idle timeout, but defining it in this way is convenient, since implement=
ations=0D
-need to maintain a PTO value anyway.=0D
+=0D
+Note:=0D
+=0D
+: Using the PTO value here implicitly includes the peer's maximum expect=
ed=0D
+acknowledgement delay in the idle timeout period; see Section 6.2.1=0D
+of {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. This ensures that the endpoint accounts for this=0D=

+known peer delay before declaring the connection as idle and closing it.=
=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

=0D 
> +(PTO) interval as defined in {{QUIC-RECOV=
ERY}}. Note that the PTO includes the=0D
+peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay. While not strictly ne=
cessary for=0D
+this purpose, it is convenient, since implementations need to maintain a=
 PTO=0D
+value anyway.=0D
=0D =0D =E2=AC=87=EF=B8=8F Suggested change=0D 
-(PTO) interval as defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}=
}. Note that the PTO includes the=0D
-peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay. While not strictly necess=
ary for=0D
-this purpose, it is convenient, since implementations need to maintain a=
 PTO=0D
-value anyway.=0D
+(PTO) interval as defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}.=0D
+=0D
+Note:=0D
+=0D
+: Using the PTO value here implicitly includes the peer's maximum expect=
ed=0D
+acknowledgement delay in the closing and draining periods; see Section 6=
.2.1=0D
+of {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}. This ensures that the endpoint takes this peer del=
ay=0D
+into account when waiting to discard subsequent packets sent by the peer=
.=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

=0D 
> +As defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, the PTO =
includes the peer's maximum expected=0D
+acknowledgement delay. This is not strictly necessary for the purposes o=
f the=0D
+idle timeout, but defining it in this way is convenient, since implement=
ations=0D
+need to maintain a PTO value anyway.=0D
=0D

This one is deliberate -- we want to account for max ack delay.

=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 unsubscribe.3D""

=0D = ----==_mimepart_5f52baab300b5_241619f02537e--