IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss considerations for max_ack_delay (#2186)

janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Sun, 16 December 2018 18:30 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 73A95129AB8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:30:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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_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 z5ktLKmm7RN9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E7512958B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:30:35 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1544985035; bh=gHTgACib0t2xOeS7eAY9CyTF9ptqaEMv7ZNawci+e7Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=C9bllGKUQLG1GAY9AxjROZgcDxRaOqRXcAXhVsqctCwgqkagwJRVDMLEi72HYITke I8TMnQCqxp7anpWu58ebt2u9tUVsXEMJgF2tHP9Lt1UKoHrA7KDSGXURSOd6Cz3Pza mwFymkbTXE4l5JRzet32xigLdTdM4c+l2oOV8OFs=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba5190561e86ca36e72f224799e95d5759a1df97792cf00000001182e5bcb92a169ce175240ec@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2186/447665161@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2186@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2186@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss considerations for max_ack_delay (#2186)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1699cbb53df_633f3f827fcd45c482498"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/Io9O8YlWD44TFTiViDMGQVF9AZk>
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: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 18:30:38 -0000

@pravb: I think this is good. I think SHOULD is the right level here -- there might be conditions where a receiver knows its delay bounds well enough.

As you noted in #2114, this is a departure from how we've traditionally thought about responsibilities, since in TCP this is entirely sender-side.  This is probably important to emphasize, as a rationale for why we're doing this differently in QUIC.

-- 
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/2186#issuecomment-447665161

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email