IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add some MUSTs to congestion control (#3978)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 21 August 2020 13:58 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 5DD1B3A0856 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 pjGu-LNoKSdV for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39AB03A084A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-d1d6e31.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d1d6e31.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.105.50]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8E75E0F0C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598018303; bh=Dv0GR4GI9F/RdHk6pfKymDt7vyxKUybf84WrhUhZ5vY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Wi6OEfMCGskRybYZ+y5TR4OQIZFrDyrkkeW8AnUZjUpdWLx3SxnHveTEqKR26iqIq bxL91EEHU+kfF1R0gzlhC8EgLqcQ9rpevv5kDzPlGHfg0XuxOntWeXVIQUUnpb2t/M h4tHk+B7rT9gurxGsKVLSQC8i3kXZdbiVbOgu6Zg=
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:58:23 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK52NJ6SKCIDAANUCUV5JOZ77EVBNHHCQBGZIM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3978/review/472512010@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3978@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3978@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Add some MUSTs to congestion control (#3978)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3fd2ff3e6d4_1fb619642251db"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/MeGaYFt9qSdNmr2ZrumXgtxaUD0>
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:58:25 -0000

@ianswett commented on this pull request.



> +Congestion avoidance uses an Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD)
+approach that MUST increase the congestion window by one maximum packet size
+per congestion window acknowledged.  When a loss or ECN-CE marking is

Early in the QUIC process, the preference of the working group was to have the recovery document be complete enough that one can implement from it, and to only reference TCP RFCs informationally.  I think that was the right decision both because there are some differences between QUIC and TCP and because not all the text in TCP RFCs is relevant here.  As such, if there are important requirements, they should be specified in this document.

-- 
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/3978#discussion_r474715025

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email