IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss Application-Limited Sending (#1637)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 15 January 2019 16:46 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 63C12129AB8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:46:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 pfNeYQhuoUCH for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:46:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60924130E69 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:46:24 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:46:23 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1547570783; bh=49N0zgcen0MjGUrvrJjU7iC+qqJuOyzUPVvVP28zxeg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=HIl0O4w+S3kuBZr2o2Qv6Z7mDmoZU8mo73fVp6DfI755AvGu54bXftaMnCADePPAy BAOmBrmppRTy2dKd42RqMVn+M+eWiCIJJmIMpvDlCebqoOgibc1uD3v8hPLcn//WyK MaO2m55pN/yAMfPukcil23+JL45d2sGAIluC66ho=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab4e708582528dd14a30394aa8d224bc6df10b186592cf000000011855d05f92a169ce14c4e0aa@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1637/review/192748666@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1637@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1637@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss Application-Limited Sending (#1637)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c3e0e5f75c19_59c53feae2ed45c41887fb"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/DfPQW51oPYitfZjqaKQ-kB6xkPA>
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:46:27 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -999,6 +996,18 @@ paces the sending of any packets in excess of the initial congestion window.
 A sender MAY implement alternate mechanisms to update its congestion window
 after idle periods, such as those proposed for TCP in {{?RFC7661}}.
 
+## Application Limited Sending
+
+The congestion window should not be increased in slow start or congestion
+avoidance when it is not fully utilized.  The congestion window could be
+under-utilized due to insufficient application data to send or flow control
+limits.
+
+When the sender is pacing(see {{pacing}}) packets, the sender may be unable
+to use the full congestion window for a period of time after receiving an
+ACK, due to pacing.  In this case, the sender should not consider themselves

I think I mean ACK, as in the frame?

-- 
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/1637#discussion_r247972865

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email