Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency between early timeout calculations (#3524)

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 16 March 2020 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B02B3A0F64 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 NCIgzdOf4wA8 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE7A33A0F67 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA691961761 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1584386456; bh=saUd/XfrTC1daJQ3VgL5Uulo3bZKcNJUZ2Bta0oMe14=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hr3cyOCeKH9MQXprU9y4ELXVkJDV7EfO+JxhtVtG7sQl5ILYN5jxEag1pQD2/PbSA 7TVclEP64KxiFmQFkzqO3/GmXx7dP1MEitQwhPpeo3Ufa4VNQPtNS4ExVdvokbSEMe xdSkyzT55Yuzki+0+dpicOVWUGOcg0Nxvg+u/G8A=
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:20:56 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3524/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Inconsistency between early timeout calculations (#3524)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e6fd198bd0fd_71e03fc352acd96014316d"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:21:04 -0000

To be precise, there is one thing that does change, and that is the initial timeout when a connection is resumed on the same path.

At the moment, the only variable we recommend to remember is SRTT, and when resuming a connection on the same path, use 2 * SRTT as the initial timeout.

The proposed change increases that to 3 * SRTT. I think this is better than status-quo, assuming that we agree that RTTVAR should be 2 * sample when there is only one known sample.

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