Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommendation not sensitive to paths with high RTT variability (#2207)
janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 19 December 2018 20:58 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 66F1F130EC9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.064
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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 Iukim6IE1lHm for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 386C5130E86 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:58:33 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1545253113; bh=XpDD10Tx6GbhafE1GN4EghnmxuHbOaSZLe5lDYhB3lY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=p+jAnWyhFgU/KjxvwSFS67DWV0V0twnIite8EIazXTyxFEfpRFTwNoe+3WBl4kaIr FXeeUBlemB1uKHXxNFUWDov6QLxO7pirLg2CB+347SQNSM/GKiRTcWPnBnkQyzBG33 P5Jxd07s1Xd0yTDwEPrSMuxTErTOAxWW7d8pTDvE=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab5b3820416892a23cf370b280e93e22354bfdf44692cf00000001183272f992a169ce17635f26@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2207/448741572@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2207@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2207@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommendation not sensitive to paths with high RTT variability (#2207)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1ab0f9a49d_41693f9f886d45b898573"; 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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/GMLyuCW99kegwWrRZtqRgti4ECM>
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: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:58:37 -0000
The threshold in time-based loss detection is a reordering threshold, not an absolute delay threshold. The path has to have both reordering and high delay variability... I'll grant that that is certainly possible. The experience we have so far is with this particular algorithm, which does not incorporate variance. I'm not opposed to incorporating the variance into the delay metric, but I don't think we know what the right answer there is. We could add a note that discusses variance and that we need more data on how to do this right. -- 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/2207#issuecomment-448741572
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommendati… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… Dave Täht
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Time based loss recommen… Martin Thomson