Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTTVar is not really a variance (#3223)

ianswett <> Tue, 19 November 2019 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF6812092C for <>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:12:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 ZZ8qkIp_B0Is for <>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 174161200C4 for <>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:12:37 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574176357; bh=rXKa1Q7o2MSLVzNE+yvcALZbXgePe1boBFmGV8XkP3Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SZU3NL7oV3HVGgGKNsRpc6rKAPlcuxwRhXlL+JK7OX2qzWhaPWkynv7ewK01Ikc21 csvgL9+s+KYhoPpAYbafdfraLg5RGf3n+aCZCl+KeaNdnijS9qNc5oqVSBTeAFt/tK oGbQ+6jFJoLh5vvW2rm1ZZJ4m+18V5q/AoPqMoDE=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3223/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTTVar is not really a variance (#3223)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd406655b847_691f3fe79dccd96c13865f"; 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
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:12:40 -0000

In both sentences, min_rtt and smoothed_rtt are described in technically accurate terms, so I think it makes sense to describe rttvar as a mean deviation, because that's the most technically accurate term.  I also understand the need for consistency, so if you have suggestions on how to improve that without removing the technical description, it'd be appreciated.

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