IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make in_flight the criterion for declaring loss (#2104)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 07 December 2018 14:26 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 75A7E12D4F0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 06:26:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 Pvd-ERSEZbL3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 06:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0187128CF2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 06:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 06:26:01 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1544192761; bh=EaXUjLh7mTORBS20OsRGxa0i/Wk6S4Mb5/aUaLW2C5s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=atS+82vwqKkLhlbmIhSfsk0Wq0KtDwRS0zl7DsCnnu8ptP4gDyA8rS39aW088S8U3 ha4zXiCVPWliyKoq/hcGs/8WiY/pCUUnz83c67uxm6uoTioT9NzXIatwdu5D9J2QbV EVeMh1pD4ULZdUTmhwxxT0IkmvybqjpBRjMfjMck=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab32de0912d6d112ddf672fc27d29ca9abd9d1626b92cf00000001182244f992a169ce172626a9@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2104/c445248125@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2104@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2104@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make in_flight the criterion for declaring loss (#2104)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c0a82f99bbf1_30333fe03ead45b882655"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/J6eZKTfIiO_urXTtLTBoG5zd9e8>
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: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 14:26:04 -0000

You're right Jana, we've agreed that padding without a ping/etc is a pointy stick.  But I think the idea was that as long as you sent an ack-eliciting frame(ping or otherwise) at least once per RTT, you'd get an ACK, and then you could do loss detection on the in flight packets.

If we leave the text as is, if a padding only packet is never ACKed, there is no mechanism for removing it from in flight, because that occurs only in OnPacketAckedCC and OnPacketsLost.

If we don't make any changes, it's really unsafe to send padding-only packets, and we're forcing implementers to figure out something to do here.  I'd rather recommend something that does not cause a deadlock, even if it may declare a few padding only packets as lost in cases when they were actually reordered.

-- 
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/pull/2104#issuecomment-445248125

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email