IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Starting persistent congestion on a ack-eliciting packet (#3941)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:30 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 5F1B83A0AEA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 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_16=1.092, 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 zYoPYrAThgtP for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 395EB3A0AE8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.62]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F30FA009B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595421037; bh=TFZzqMWWZXhGtyxy8ciMRYq5ONRCvfTTEyhAbNCETqU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UuRfUzGzfYhJaqyLN0/ZC7+cg6WwR9GHO9PK5gLPZeUBAOJx1oNwE0KqlU0fUeIjk Ku+biFWwQ9GpMIqlohxXQpSvkMVRFtjkkkZIVLZHb7BUXkrWOLw2IjDRjQ8R0Xeqva 6BLEM+GdA8daEjHz6fHSTyrtJWfrOxjKmLwlAVl0=
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:30:37 -0700
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK76P2Q3MKAXNCWPJLF5EQJG3EVBNHHCPD33TU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3941/662425149@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3941@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3941@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Starting persistent congestion on a ack-eliciting packet (#3941)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f18316d70479_56973f87130cd968112673"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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/RiJKx2RkBW5UOGSgdiXni0RHHxY>
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, 22 Jul 2020 12:30:39 -0000

> Note that persistent congestion can be caused by the loss of just two packets after multiple PTOs have occurred, but the common case is that you have at least three packet, or four if you send two packets on PTO.

Would it make sense to change the persistent congestion condition to require at least 3 packets to be lost, in addition to the time threshold that we already have?

-- 
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/3941#issuecomment-662425149

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email