Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Skip a packet number when sending one PTO packet (#2952)

ianswett <> Fri, 13 September 2019 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED617120864 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 C5HX2DGJGoMt for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56F721200F9 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:19:46 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1568387986; bh=N9j8ybCzH8ZNybMw5L52xysJgNu0BcHKfmjcZhupqLg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=2BdCjCYxy9IlZGSO7Xs+7nquQCcybZb8zkSdwulnOD6VhcxwBN5PA0HZxVErUSQtF 1XLwkuDaggtMgxu0cmPA1tlKlrg9ex8v5DEd1MgIRwZa9b8SrP1bZldnS+a/nn4FFv p/NMAX5nnnEYIoJfcD1gNwghJXgu87nOhy5u7EBA=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2952/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Skip a packet number when sending one PTO packet (#2952)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d7bb39269d50_77453fb8050cd9686507d"; 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
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:19:49 -0000

I'm going to run an experiment comparing 1 PTO packet, 2 PTO packets, and 1 with skipping a packet number and report back the results.  If the results are good enough with 1PTO + gap, we can consider whether this is an optimization worth mentioning.

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