Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentCongestionThreshold be 2 or 3? (#2556)

ianswett <> Thu, 28 March 2019 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C061112044C for <>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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, 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 xk18tZkycn18 for <>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A0B120457 for <>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:37:18 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1553780238; bh=+h6pEiAlMhkYbmBrmBa8HACdK26qoU7MqYRVH9P6PgM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=dxry+2h0cmirpqbUUhk8LoITPtjIK0Sn3/n492A7N4FTxT2jKRy7PWxzjgC8l/9fZ /H7g87/IrXfJq+guUDmSrVsEre2vnJ62s5Vifvd+7FEV+Mvy9FZbT/PYblNpEtOJJS reTPfZ5VQbzKcZ4Otr0qAWy4KvYVe44jgTy9rcu4=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2556/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentCongestionThreshold be 2 or 3? (#2556)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9cce0e5f601_36fc3f7f06cd45b41982b0"; 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: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:37:22 -0000

I edited the title to indicate 2 or 3 instead of 1 or 2, now that #2557 has landed.

Yes, TLPs in TCP do not change RTO.  One of the reasons TLP was added in the way it was is that it doesn't really interact with RTO at all, which made it convenient.

My understanding is that TCP uses 200ms because it's 2x the expected delayed ACK timer?  If so, given we're including max_ack_delay in the PTO value, shouldn't that be sufficient(assuming we keep a 2x or larger multiplier on PTO)?

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