Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC PTO (#3441)
Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 25 February 2020 23:53 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 59A693A08D8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:53:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 7mxW-ZA9SABY for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:53:18 -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 C411B3A08D5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-6349a71.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-6349a71.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.18.20]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F11726173D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:53:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1582674797; bh=E7X6if2YgD2Bv9kdOJrvSKAspbsW58EW5blZkYL9BOw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=upX3CEU6zg4Wgdr/Egp98/K/yeyKq/GVBenbR5xx1LWmZMn7d3AnvbgTDdi93fFG3 cEPP4epKaGZb+2kdeQ7DUByF/qLRClsNeW2ZzisQbJ8VQeDvWcQOO8C/hZry2ZWcBN wmh8sbTCtHZNtsKox12Iz95Py0kgHvyHiBsEkQF8=
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:53:16 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2NCLC6A57OBEJRZQF4MLS6ZEVBNHHCC7S66M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3441/review/364519445@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3441@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3441@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC PTO (#3441)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e55b36cccd4d_24983f8c492cd96c10015b"; 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/JiE8jKexNXMLV7x7R9qRxNHJZ-s>
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, 25 Feb 2020 23:53:21 -0000
janaiyengar commented on this pull request. > @@ -228,6 +228,23 @@ QUIC endpoints measure the delay incurred between when a packet is received and when the corresponding acknowledgment is sent, allowing a peer to maintain a more accurate round-trip time estimate (see Section 13.2 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). +### Probe Timeout Replaces RTO and TLP + +QUIC uses a probe timeout (see {{pto}}), with a timer based on TCP's +RTO timeout. QUIC PTO includes the peer's max_ack_delay in the calculation, ```suggestion RTO period computation. QUIC's PTO period includes the peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay (max_ack_delay, Section XX), ``` > @@ -228,6 +228,23 @@ QUIC endpoints measure the delay incurred between when a packet is received and when the corresponding acknowledgment is sent, allowing a peer to maintain a more accurate round-trip time estimate (see Section 13.2 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). +### Probe Timeout Replaces RTO and TLP + +QUIC uses a probe timeout (see {{pto}}), with a timer based on TCP's +RTO timeout. QUIC PTO includes the peer's max_ack_delay in the calculation, +instead of relying upon a fixed minimum RTO. Unlike TCP's RTO, which collapses ```suggestion instead of using a fixed minimum period. Unlike TCP, which collapses ``` > @@ -228,6 +228,23 @@ QUIC endpoints measure the delay incurred between when a packet is received and when the corresponding acknowledgment is sent, allowing a peer to maintain a more accurate round-trip time estimate (see Section 13.2 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). +### Probe Timeout Replaces RTO and TLP + +QUIC uses a probe timeout (see {{pto}}), with a timer based on TCP's +RTO timeout. QUIC PTO includes the peer's max_ack_delay in the calculation, +instead of relying upon a fixed minimum RTO. Unlike TCP's RTO, which collapses +the congestion window upon expiry, QUIC does not change the congestion window ```suggestion the congestion window upon expiry of an RTO, QUIC does not change the congestion window ``` > @@ -228,6 +228,23 @@ QUIC endpoints measure the delay incurred between when a packet is received and when the corresponding acknowledgment is sent, allowing a peer to maintain a more accurate round-trip time estimate (see Section 13.2 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). +### Probe Timeout Replaces RTO and TLP + +QUIC uses a probe timeout (see {{pto}}), with a timer based on TCP's +RTO timeout. QUIC PTO includes the peer's max_ack_delay in the calculation, +instead of relying upon a fixed minimum RTO. Unlike TCP's RTO, which collapses +the congestion window upon expiry, QUIC does not change the congestion window +and instead allows sending probe packets whenever the timer expires. This is ```suggestion and instead sends probe packets whenever the timer expires. This is ``` > @@ -228,6 +228,23 @@ QUIC endpoints measure the delay incurred between when a packet is received and when the corresponding acknowledgment is sent, allowing a peer to maintain a more accurate round-trip time estimate (see Section 13.2 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). +### Probe Timeout Replaces RTO and TLP + +QUIC uses a probe timeout (see {{pto}}), with a timer based on TCP's +RTO timeout. QUIC PTO includes the peer's max_ack_delay in the calculation, +instead of relying upon a fixed minimum RTO. Unlike TCP's RTO, which collapses +the congestion window upon expiry, QUIC does not change the congestion window +and instead allows sending probe packets whenever the timer expires. This is +similar to TCP with F-RTO, but it does allow more packets to be sent when the +congestion window was not fully utilized when the probe timeout expires. Though I don't think this is similar to F-RTO... I would remove this previous sentence. > @@ -228,6 +228,23 @@ QUIC endpoints measure the delay incurred between when a packet is received and when the corresponding acknowledgment is sent, allowing a peer to maintain a more accurate round-trip time estimate (see Section 13.2 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). +### Probe Timeout Replaces RTO and TLP + +QUIC uses a probe timeout (see {{pto}}), with a timer based on TCP's +RTO timeout. QUIC PTO includes the peer's max_ack_delay in the calculation, +instead of relying upon a fixed minimum RTO. Unlike TCP's RTO, which collapses +the congestion window upon expiry, QUIC does not change the congestion window +and instead allows sending probe packets whenever the timer expires. This is +similar to TCP with F-RTO, but it does allow more packets to be sent when the +congestion window was not fully utilized when the probe timeout expires. Though +this is slightly more aggressive than TCP RTO, it's less aggressive than if the +connection was not application limited. I'm not sure I understand this last sentence... how is app-limited relevant here? > @@ -228,6 +228,23 @@ QUIC endpoints measure the delay incurred between when a packet is received and when the corresponding acknowledgment is sent, allowing a peer to maintain a more accurate round-trip time estimate (see Section 13.2 of {{QUIC-TRANSPORT}}). +### Probe Timeout Replaces RTO and TLP + +QUIC uses a probe timeout (see {{pto}}), with a timer based on TCP's +RTO timeout. QUIC PTO includes the peer's max_ack_delay in the calculation, +instead of relying upon a fixed minimum RTO. Unlike TCP's RTO, which collapses +the congestion window upon expiry, QUIC does not change the congestion window +and instead allows sending probe packets whenever the timer expires. This is +similar to TCP with F-RTO, but it does allow more packets to be sent when the +congestion window was not fully utilized when the probe timeout expires. Though +this is slightly more aggressive than TCP RTO, it's less aggressive than if the +connection was not application limited. + +A single packet loss at the tail does not indicate persistent congestion, so +QUIC defines a time-based definition (see {{persistent-congestion}}) to ```suggestion QUIC specifies a time-based definition (see {{persistent-congestion}}) to ``` -- 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/3441#pullrequestreview-364519445
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC PTO… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Nick Banks
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… Lars Eggert
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document TCP RTO vs QUIC… MikkelFJ