IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify PADDING vs PING frames (#838)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Thu, 05 October 2017 18:58 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 30F4213431F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, 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 s8O_kQ0oPUVk for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:58:22 -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 803091326FE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=Eyy1OeJ7JsVh4W0miQTaM5Ctecc=; b=k+zPgPSHp6G95Lf5 Vfv9BmN97ER1aovsE5Djl5X9507vc/t9a4eQ0lzaLx+U7QV+rb1OuGMO7RbwKU6K HoCqQzdqwChZkgJJCaUt2O8CeaQNvfUArYOeEOhwH18TlA6KUsHLavWJBA5aZFIe 9xczoIlQQxxQ21S47YYCae4/7Ew=
Received: by filter0177p1iad2.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0177p1iad2-12664-59D680CD-1D 2017-10-05 18:58:21.5073576 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2a-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.16]) by ismtpd0024p1iad2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id jMRc7oWSQi2xbhJcyDNhkg for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:58:21.538 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:58:21 +0000
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba4d6329c73dc048d0ffc7056157c857198e8772992cf0000000115ee42cd92a169ce0fb03aff@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/838/334560054@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/838@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/838@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify PADDING vs PING frames (#838)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_59d680cd55d7c_2733ff7af440f3454055"; 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
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak1sfondYvDIhM9xAyDETNuF6y3Oram+riUYGE JHNLMMsox8glV74ThkRklntWUQGH8cqedy968KQQjN1LwdnMPFu+YMZR/Woo6N0/PQXlW6evJ+Jhye 3aPa2EfWhb9s7r5t2dmkTaOVQHikzNRyfdFpKTlLVvwV0lp5PYUv0uSdIpQVBkzdPXOCOBz+48MN5u w=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/TSh7-rAurQuyVgXbm3m6hVEbguM>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:58:24 -0000

I believe PADDING either needs to count for congestion control or not.  If it counts towards congestion control, then it needs to generate ACKs, because otherwise it would never be removed from byte_in_flight and you could get congestion blocked.

I would be concerned about not counting padding towards bytes in flight.  As mentioned before, the only reason ACK only packets are excluded is to avoid the connection from stalling.

-- 
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/838#issuecomment-334560054

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status