Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] loss detection timer description could be simplified by definining a timer mode (#3151)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

If we are going to make a change, I would very much argue for using a
single timer. There's never a time when we might want both timers, which is
signaled clearly to implementers by using a single timer. We can refactor
the handling of timeouts though.

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 12:11 PM ianswett <[e-mail]> wrote:

> One other idea would be to add a second timer, so you'd have a loss_timer
> and pto_timer. I was strongly against this when we had handshake
> retransmissions and TLP retransmissions and RTO retransmissions, but now
> that we're down to PTO, I like the idea better. I think that might be
> simpler to understand than an enum, and you could split the pseudocode into
> two methods.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3151?email_source=notifications&email_token=ACUOBVCZ4BN6YOF5ATH62PDQRXGFXA5CNFSM4JE5JFSKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEC5C3LY#issuecomment-549072303>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACUOBVGBOLNG37GJS2A6WIDQRXGFXANCNFSM4JE5JFSA>
> .
>


-- 
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/3151#issuecomment-549072942