[quicwg/base-drafts] unclear definition of persistent congestion (#3937)

[Marten Seemann <[e-mail]>]

A sender sends a tail of 10 packets, packet number 1 to 10. It now receives an acknowledgement for packets 5 and 10, which establishes the loss of all other packets.

It's not clear how to perform the check for persistent congestion now. Several options come to mind:

1. check if the period between 6 and 9 is longer than 3*PTO
2. check if either the period between packet 1 and 4 or the period between packet 6 and 9 is longer than 3*PTO
3. The ACK doesn't establish loss of *all* tail packets, so there's no persistent congestion.

In an offline discussion, both @mjoras and @goelvidhi expressed preferences for different options here. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here, but at least the draft should be clearer on what exactly establishes persistent congestion and what doesn't.


-- 
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/3937