IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit RTO? (#556)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 5C3EE129B46 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 07:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 SVKrTTRzPvrP for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 07:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o11.sgmail.github.com (o11.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB89912EAF4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 07:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=TiiKuOhQiWDsYR8p9iPdZKLSCzE=; b=Qn8qi3Vq+KOFQQ5F djFZKgvbXZR/+5Bri3VLHdgYlDFKx+prvqCf2shWYb/jfTsBaIJdFpy08yT248Vx GLzRHiE/bXSGO/+L42QkGjoyNtbfTOIJXdwCUqNHmTypCOkGbZCRXKRou4I/dkXi rt8SObgOR9t1Ie1corgCLmDm6Mk=
Received: by filter0414p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0414p1mdw1-3810-59259952-54 2017-05-24 14:31:46.517765657 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0005p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id 3Wm2GpzdRXK5at_yMil-wQ for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:31:46.446 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:31:46 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab6066bc2fa4e300ee26b9a401fff2cc57a90abfe192cf00000001153d5b5292a169ce0dc59154@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/556/303741983@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/556@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/556@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit RTO? (#556)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_59259952a0fe_74c13ff72a38fc3c735bf"; 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
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3Obgklpmpx02rJ3yMeTYzKlpqkczGS+r2psi YI+cF0OyrNlelnPWo04siWILvFWOLkMHQwaQZdSe4UsvSk+aU4U+vKabcJFtEJHpwYdRXhcb4ADaRo XE2JqXsp0kHpGfLiz2dEXDDyEfcOYvGUZ4OgXQO/oFoQV0zYKffH37t+4ELNjQvLrqt/uXGAJ6eKsB w=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/E9rDSSaAvT0noVhH8LssFWY1Nrk>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:31:53 -0000

Yes, 60ms as a max would be insanely short.  I thought you just mis-typed before.

Should I document the 60s max then?

-- 
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/issues/556#issuecomment-303741983

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status