[quicwg/base-drafts] Awkward text in "Sending Probe Packets" (#2493)

Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com> Fri, 01 March 2019 00:57 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2551310EC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:57:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eG0QvKz91bWL for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:57:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D62821310E8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:57:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:57:08 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1551401828; bh=EYwOawo8UXv5mM6P5lH4m0++sRkvhXa8hBjBB3tDAHM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1t6qa4TW+GOZPd0OAnEdiZjxJzZkDy0l74pp6BASHGn7P9EJRnEKXlcuzcPjrDcQo uMwURZ9wWzGLXuZBm8EyQILAZ2y9A8MHvLnxv2enYmJKOtNX+q/tcEvQF2Uooejprx AKMw4V5AEbKofEXE5mASm/FPPdDvcIGyLHrh2z9M=
From: Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abe87f0b50ba395e13208bc9518fc78b3a56ccead792cf000000011890456492a169ce18ca0231@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2493@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Awkward text in "Sending Probe Packets" (#2493)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c7883644d831_6fc13fa9424d45c42179ef"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: larseggert
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/VARrlIKaHy2N_NzlttjhACdW0KY>
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: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:57:12 -0000

As discussed with @janaiyengar, is awkward, because in the first paragraph it says
   When a PTO timer expires, the sender MUST send one ack-eliciting
   packet as a probe.
And then the very last paragraph changes that by saying
   When a PTO timer expires, new or previously-sent data may not be
   available to send and packets may still be in flight.  A sender can
   be blocked from sending new data in the future if packets are left in
   flight.  Under these conditions, a sender SHOULD mark any packets
   still in flight as lost.
What is super unclear is that the final paragraph apparently means to imply that when there is no new or unACKed data to send, *nothing* should be send, i.e., it invalidates the SHOULD in the first paragraph.

Related to that, the pseudo code still uses `SendTwoPackets()`, which is also inaccurate, since it's really "at least one (unless you don't have new or unACKed data) but can also send two". Good luck finding a good name for that function :-)

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