Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Praveen's WGLC comments (#3919)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

I've addressed the editorial bits in #3928. The rest are addressed below.

- We don't have a recommended value for Idle timeout, but it the [transport spec](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#section-10.1) states the following:
```
To avoid excessively small idle timeout periods, endpoints MUST increase the
idle timeout period to be at least three times the current Probe Timeout (PTO).
```
That said, the peer's `max_idle_timeout` is known to both sides. If you find that the peer's timeout is too short for your purposes, you can keep the connection alive through PINGs.

- On faster acknowledgement when PTO: yes, sending two packets works just fine. Skipping packet numbers is not something you need to do -- so the additional complexity concern is only for those who want to go do it -- it's just something that an implementation can do to get an immediate ack anytime in the connection.

- On PTOs and persistent congestion, there's text at the top of the section that calls this out explicitly:
```
Commonly, this can be established by consecutive PTOs, but since the PTO timer
is reset when a new ack-eliciting packet is sent, an explicit duration must be used
to account for those cases where PTOs do not occur or are substantially delayed.
```
Nevertheless, I've added a sentence at the end of the example description.

- AreAllPacketsLost is in #3288.

-- 
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/3919#issuecomment-662089620