Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit CWND increase in slow start (#3232)

Vidhi Goel <> Sun, 17 November 2019 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315CE1200B5 for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:14:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XYZTJfaX1aUv for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA4DD12001E for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F7C6A0073 for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:14:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574021651; bh=ZR7aRAG/e9jthHR2eUNCbzudqwZpaiCw7ujw7DY45pM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wQVmLddwIiDG3vQSHMZGGh1Fc4ZsO8IW27Phhn6SAi9T7lC7rhg6j8jwLG34S7FrJ i8klG/t6+nxfvlOjCSTwEHJy4kfNNrSmUPjz659u7Pu1BE0dOVJzwUA6Nrgj2NJhFU rn5/fPVngzddDAXKKuaP9FITLUVkqtIy8/PiGB+c=
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:14:11 -0800
From: Vidhi Goel <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3232/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit CWND increase in slow start (#3232)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd1aa13c26b8_38723fb306acd96c48517e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: goelvidhi
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 20:14:14 -0000

> * Do we need anything in addition to the existing IW burst limit?  A single ACK loss would not cause a burst to exceed the IW10 limit, and multiple consecutive ACK losses in slow start are VERY rare in my experience.
> * Do we need to describe the non-pacing scenarios in the pseudocode, given we recommend pacing?  Using CWND to manipulate sending behavior is an

I agree that increasing congestion window and controlling sending rate are orthogonal in theory. But in practice, congestion window is being used in many implementations to indirectly control the sending rate. I think the addition of RFC3465 text and pseudocode is more for completeness than what should be ideal behavior.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: