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

Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com> Tue, 05 November 2019 00:12 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 49A2A1201EF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:12:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 mINMyv_lIJsx for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-9.smtp.github.com (out-9.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC0C21200CD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.55]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B544261645 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:12:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7VGEPDK4QJOXOJ5OF3ZXYNDEVBNHHB5VOOHI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3189/549604994@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3189@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3189@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/IiJ3Vt_Q_Pusj4sBJw-dlq9R4Go>
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, 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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3189#issuecomment-549604994