Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SHOULD implement adaptive packet threshold loss detection (#3571)

ianswett <> Thu, 09 April 2020 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CFC3A098C for <>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 8KPEp5ZtGdV3 for <>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C37793A0B16 for <>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E5F2C1AA8 for <>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1586439059; bh=JlNEi7SsEvTUNE1XMCL7NswzaLsuuktkw25H+euPKQ8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Tih9FuQRo9pQ1q8MIEZ6ArLO+1wh5Jm7+dHgHtLnas+kHygHE3lpmfHYTnetls+T5 tALGnUj2J6vbEBUyqdIgdGMBqyj2XkdrCxnVBywc7oJMmwwqrW4EFpXmmoCPU+93ap e8mCHwMIcT92nIgll3Yuy2wHZvOGuDvMFoRvcjt4=
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 06:30:59 -0700
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3571/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SHOULD implement adaptive packet threshold loss detection (#3571)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8f2393c774d_4e913fe6de0cd9601113b3"; 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: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 13:31:10 -0000

As Matt Olson pointed out, we already reference RACK informationally.  We could remove all the references to RACK, but I think that's a separate question?  We can more clearly explain what this means or re-instate the reference to RFC4653.

TCP has been doing this for a very long time, so I don't think the fact we have limited experience in QUIC is as important.  In terms of 'new information', the performance improvement from adaptive packet threshold was measurable for both application latency and by reducing the rate of spurious retransmits.  And I finally read the RACK draft and noticed it was a SHOULD there.

The original intent was to change a MAY to a SHOULD, which is a very small design change, but then I realized the existing text wasn't that clear, so I tried to improve it.  We have to do another round of consensus calls in the next few weeks, so though this change is very small, it seems like the right thing to do to me.

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