IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Replace recovery epoch with congestion event (#2585)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 03 April 2019 13:04 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 3D77612051C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 06:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 qN90tk7_8Hdd for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2D101204FF for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 06:04:20 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1554296660; bh=hUngMPDwWYdPbBzQmTuhu9zUl+osnJ6NFkuF18lP0Zc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Uc5tXOgwHhUDBkppc/gyNnVHgLfCIuk8Ep4ZIeuI2DK7hPxHEVeBlPTBjhA/61Q96 mQja82fiQMkKGG5zOG50IxozWvphPQXPXKC4yMMDQcBpv55ysSevW3pHX5VzdTgYXE +/5NbFulg0rSPKeg3SP7PnO9vA+hfIX9mqk4zSLw=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab80ee99caa1d8fa0e0553d718e9517cdc1a3b605d92cf0000000118bc715492a169ce198953e0@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2585/review/222194404@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2585@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2585@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Replace recovery epoch with congestion event (#2585)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ca4af545ce5e_75a43f865b2d45bc768a4"; 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/Qe6do8c7vEXfNBdPcutgJ8qeiH8>
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 13:04:25 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1318,8 +1318,8 @@ window.
 
 ~~~
    CongestionEvent(sent_time):
-     // Start a new congestion event if the sent time is larger
-     // than the start time of the previous recovery epoch.
+     // Start a new congestion event if packet was sent after the
+     // start of the previous congestion event.

Good point.  We don't use epoch anywhere else in this doc except this pseudocode, and it's different from the definition in security contexts, so I'd like to avoid the term.

Do you have any other suggestions?  Congestion Period, etc?  I'm not even that happy about using InRecovery here, since in TCP that has a distinct meaning that doesn't map 1:1 to QUIC.

-- 
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/2585#discussion_r271731184

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email