Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC lacks on-path exposure of packet loss (#3189)

Igor Lubashev <> Tue, 05 November 2019 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A2A1201EF for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:12:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 mINMyv_lIJsx for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC0C21200CD for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B544261645 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:12:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572912721; bh=6HWdL/3oZ76Wt79NdBK0vwzAN1kuS/g9Y5fxCAi9ffE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=RN3413wIY8uHMY1TOGopZGfIAi5WgKRb+I0+Jqpj9Z6af60C3ws1DsuuD7Ymi6Bdu mPqcrzrINOVXjZQR+dHRMRU3+L//b3atkuolR9qlKIFow6V98A1If6QztNZZffA07U uq1u7qfEkCup9YXSN11bG/0fZvJyAqtkXJpA8cc0=
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 16:12:01 -0800
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3189/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC lacks on-path exposure of packet loss (#3189)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc0be51175d3_4ffc3fec7aacd964256167"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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, 05 Nov 2019 00:12:03 -0000

> This issue was discussed previously in #632. Is there new information that might result in us reaching a different conclusion?

The last comment from @martinthomson in #632 was:
> In the future, if there are more concrete proposals for what can be measured (and ideally how), then we will need a thorough analysis along the lines of that performed for the spin bit.

This issue references a concrete proposal as well as a measurement study of that proposal performed on actual user QUIC traffic.  It is asking for a consideration along the lines of that performed for the spin bit. Is that not so?

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