Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Behavior around key availability delays during handshake (#3874)

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Fri, 28 August 2020 19:59 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 A1AB53A0B5E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 s1ylsd5IliJA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B8A53A0B5B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D298840049 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598644776; bh=bNpSgaekn2LHs9Z3sBbfA5/pJFukpo8BQQf7lQlsBY4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZNxGmd4vfiT5dZX2tHOyn64vRX32O3x9XHrmd5KSOsDDCqIJ/6vsEPLnCVCbZ/PF2 Tzg9u8I3UWvmofjkHaLMFLplMfH/gVINq69RIs+10g3gyRhLxOJCc5KMlPZY1cgORd rc+/wB+cI3HQD7JSBVp4doqMRxK5EnLNbZq1zpYo=
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:59:36 -0700
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3JACODJA6DGMTJV6F5KVBSREVBNHHCN3MY3A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874/review/477982122@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3874@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Behavior around key availability delays during handshake (#3874)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f4962286e09b_2fb119642622a7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
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/Je2v_WmAt1J4BL4xMTlxzhfaofU>
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, 28 Aug 2020 19:59:39 -0000

@martinduke approved this pull request.



> +the acknowledgement delay or in the endpoint's min_rtt estimate.  Therefore,
+prior to handshake confirmation, an endpoint can ignore RTT samples if adjusting
+the RTT sample for acknowledgement delay causes the sample to be less than the
+min_rtt.
+
+After the handshake is confirmed, any acknowledgement delays reported by the
+peer that are greater than the peer's max_ack_delay are attributed to
+unintentional but potentially repeating delays, such as scheduler latency at the
+peer or loss of previous acknowledgements. Therefore, these extra delays are
+considered effectively part of path delay and incorporated into the RTT
+estimate.
+
+Therefore, when adjusting an RTT sample using peer-reported acknowledgement
+delays, an endpoint:
+
+- MAY ignore the acknowledgement delay for Initial packets,

If I understand correctly,  this leads to a higher current_rtt measurement. It would be nice if the paragraph above included a motivation for that.

-- 
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/3874#pullrequestreview-477982122