[quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentCongestionThreshold be 1 or 2? (#2556)

Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com> Tue, 26 March 2019 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 358961202DC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.382 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 WFeqp2fNxr-Z for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o6.sgmail.github.com (o6.sgmail.github.com [192.254.113.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD58C1202D1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=kOoZQyUjHGsA1xOaaiGNQtPR/6I=; b=eymDUSPLdzLItc0T NoYCtnoZVJAqwjcl9FsZVUdUEv9O+ZaL02ktVe4PlCA+v8MZnG0InwS5PJh2TDda GW2dhwiIwTv+YfuyeJKDrQmLNxCa3sxbibxp1cpHdEk7zA7PLxO9oxhM5BXgEQhv n0s1C95KxK87t3n6WTxiXG9hzbQ=
Received: by filter1461p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1461p1mdw1-12442-5C9A2EF9-24 2019-03-26 13:54:01.819607789 +0000 UTC m=+738383.959266840
Received: from github-lowworker-f6df7df.cp1-iad.github.net (unknown [192.30.252.41]) by ismtpd0036p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id gQ544TWcRo-gEQIMndfOaA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:54:01.729 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from github.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by github-lowworker-f6df7df.cp1-iad.github.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCD23E0281 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:54:01 +0000
From: Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba7727f821dd55c9a2e50c030d4ec72ba1a119ecd92cf0000000118b1f0f992a169ce195b9436@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2556@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentCongestionThreshold be 1 or 2? (#2556)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9a2ef9ae33b_75df3fa23dcd45b411211"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: pravb
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2MuYffI9B39YuIbiE94E99kiXg7fWFBvmTsQ 4LpLBNnEjCT0g2/u7Dy3XDEDVw7nvmfR8SRGnOqMISwE4FWKB+dv3fTs+Sua4t1u2E5l7i4isef5H7 glfJIAGWCp+sZC7V+4UQrr4asTHTk+E/3r2JYRGW4CJW4P3T1TRozJNuQm48ynhwlxParldJYlilzS Y=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/RSYKLYrlOsOGoEF8IDdDFBPKSfA>
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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:54:04 -0000

Both Linux and Windows TCP arm a single PTO for TLP and then arm the RTO. The recommendation in RACK draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rack is also for doing a single TLP. If we keep the value as 2 then we need to add a justification statement for deviating from TCP. It would be good to find out if Yuchung has a any data on why Linux settled on a single TLP (PTO). 

-- 
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/2556