Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] compensation of ack_delay is fragile against errors (#2060)

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 30 November 2018 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E364B128CF2 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:03:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 cMcQ67Ygn8Xu for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:03:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8663012008A for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:03:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:03:15 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1543543395; bh=/PhN03nErcHMc8FJnSqRwgJD/PavJJT9uAShdiViwQ8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=mdPa2CuNzZgovAP9yjQOCcvNprdxNhV++7pFV7MJHnjtqm7k7POKNircOx4/RR1qe RosTF3XksLK8hIIKQsM5cwNu5p5jD5LQbF5fh0BFFXRTpb5LUj9ZER10pJGO0rMRNL VEFOdlRAyTPGY+ceNHMRBHgvL09qQoDwYrdCoSfw=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2060/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] compensation of ack_delay is fragile against errors (#2060)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c009a63c6f89_74173fce95cd45bc185078"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:03:18 -0000

Yeah. Discontinuity sounds the best word to explain the issue in the current approach.

> There is the question of what to do if the specified ack_delay is larger than the value specified in transport params. Possibly we should only adjust by min(ack_delay, max_ack_delay), and then if the alarm is always waking up late, SRTT will include that even though max_ack_delay is not?

I am not sure if min(ack_delay, max_ack_delay) desirable, because ack_delay would typically be greater than max_ack_delay for retransmitted ACKs.

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