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

ianswett <> Fri, 30 November 2018 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D8E126BED for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:21:14 -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 kRtP4Un8fVxD for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED9F412008A for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:21:12 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1543548072; bh=agMgfDJI1QiQDnuCdQRnoJagA5yAxzmxer4fNfKDM8o=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0wMELHl09M++fDm2Ya5jHOdrK5/qQImgxaGb0XSBaKq5CcZckBpL9nHfjRoF2MGWd qnkpMHqnNVwWeXo85sm2blKdB4RaOx+/9I1+aAKx084ngoh/r7aVmAHdD3uT1VkX3x M4KRHSXtq07GAdYYdbu8imG7lE9XWrbRjup6ivc8=
From: ianswett <>
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_5c00aca81d434_24783fc0250d45c46043b0"; 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
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 03:21:14 -0000

I think there should be a goal of making both the ack_delay always 0 case and the max_ack_delay of 0 case converge to the same behavior?

I think the old approach was problematic because it used a max filter for something that potentially had some loss and tail latency that was not typical, but could permanently drive up tail latency.

As such, I think limiting by no more than max_ack_delay is a good realworld compromise.

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