IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO after handshake completion is not well-defined (#3831)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Wed, 15 July 2020 04:32 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 4B2693A0E91 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, 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 UOKA4-KB5Itx for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0297B3A0E90 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.57]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18989A044C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594787568; bh=bAacR5sVZdqlq9RZBzzIrXaqOGb9BWfURWlcFkrl3yE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DX4E6JTGOdNS/QcYBGgKQrKCvyf4AIpexjPgUJ6gFU30ef3+JFIBD0twfLr8x5tTM tbj1IBoLIXh86YIpJCbOL0YT97RaPIoRMCZjpSzN+d6iS8Y3V3K3CdhADaNQUeULy/ 6lkYaBQYNDrmQH8CkwTwwm3vFHJ/cBUZb+wP5SUk=
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:32:48 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7EOYLC6GCM2AXZXAN5DJT7BEVBNHHCNXO66A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3831/658539363@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3831@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3831@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO after handshake completion is not well-defined (#3831)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f0e86f0a6ea_7d723fd12d0cd9681143051"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/GeyE6n1UUCCu2OCbSdDaCHZ7LeM>
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, 15 Jul 2020 04:32:50 -0000

Reconsidering the original point, is the assumption that persistent congestion period is calculated per PN space?

The question is if that assumption has been the intent of the specification. Pseudo-code might imply that (as `AreAllPacketsLost` takes `lost_packets` - a per-PN-space value - as an argument), but I do not see any mention regarding PN space in the text itself.

-- 
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/3831#issuecomment-658539363

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email