IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] update kInitialRtt to 333ms, use that constant (#3823)

Kazu Yamamoto <notifications@github.com> Tue, 14 July 2020 00:56 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 3B4223A0CB5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:56:00 -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 8tYA_yoTIvxc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E39943A0C2E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DFCD6E01FD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594688158; bh=EHx9ZWBw3PqlIJ91I8vbp0RWUMoTL3a3ZhitxBvVkOM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=n2zygjtfHV6TPg+PVt25SAFXs6C0OCs+3rDRL7g2bWL463QaUFQbYvXjgeP+ijo+C O1sQ4EF+tHI9q+XNhte4gPJh8hGxAUaMiyceLQX2RrS4bDoH6cKQsANbaQBYxo0b/g ASSKOWYLmI3k8lFFajbc2oclC9mw1LWMdrRCaxRI=
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:55:58 -0700
From: Kazu Yamamoto <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4VRKNFVIDGIJG3FPF5DDRZ5EVBNHHCNUDN6I@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3823/c657904430@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3823@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3823@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] update kInitialRtt to 333ms, use that constant (#3823)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f0d029e2f3b5_d5a3fa958ecd95c17479d7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazu-yamamoto
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/H5Gt3L_xNHdV1ecDRUcgvp7_tZ4>
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 00:56:00 -0000

It seems to me that QUIC pseudo is based on RFC 6298:
1. Initialize RTO
2. Overwite RTO by the first sample
3. Calucate RTO after that

This algorithm for TCP makes sense to me because this is for RTO. The initial value is used as timeout. 

However, for the PTO approach of QUIC, the second step does not make sense to me. If the initial value is overwritten, the value is not used at all.

Am I misunderstanding something?

-- 
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/pull/3823#issuecomment-657904430

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status