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

Jana Iyengar <> Sat, 02 November 2019 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261C912002E for <>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 9KydwBtHGpmN for <>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D946F12006F for <>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA5C1C0695 for <>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1572722404; bh=UrAL16Hm8sCjARWW4vOB7nVck17cGkUNVFsw23Sfl90=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WE6srPYd4qjF06tIwuHpVYqvUEfDu10SoEW6U+sczPZ2PZv1PXsh4+hO7uVS2A67y CfKndz0J3G2nU0ms9idMlQ34FyocZ5h9TFCsaFtNtZV+IknERGGoIckc8sBg7rO/ch iOyxX4xKnrsXKQqohWvXkSWqw5OYHq6suT0YpAVc=
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:20:04 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3151/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] loss detection timer description could be simplified by definining a timer mode (#3151)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dbdd6e4116d6_1a653fb2358cd9688224e1"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 19:20:07 -0000

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 <> 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
> <>,
> or unsubscribe
> <>
> .

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