[quicwg/base-drafts] Should platform delays be included in ack-delay? (#2596)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 09 April 2019 02:49 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 BFDC71200CC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 SuUZXv56DqWV for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.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 A96B7120043 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 19:49:43 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1554778183; bh=V8uDpq7BUquvQIQSj2MJ204m6TbPixFi9rwqdth07SA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DoE38ESpku8aRelbeEx5yWg7FhpahDCJMpyW4JMt/GCtGBLr8GOX3k/RUwL36IhIT oKF/Qe5PwXfiyBwj4H9SisbkPAEa1t8Vrh5Zh9OqzSCUC4PU+uwCB+lyWsRYewZFxE sGC/4Mar8Sg74BsHV/OnEf2GJ4XCq00Ksu3wkNOE=
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab95dbb71b96508d85c89aee315d5ded3b874ebd5c92cf0000000118c3ca4792a169ce19ac985c@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2596@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should platform delays be included in ack-delay? (#2596)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cac0847ea318_70ea3f9143ed45b8125770"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/VftWGKJEBU7-83SJ8vzXxGDb6Dw>
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 02:49:48 -0000

Spawned from #2592.

@martinthomson typed: "Probably not for this change, but do we really want to encourage people to be estimating delays in the kernel? Because it seems like the point of some of the other changes is to include that sort of delay in the RTT estimate. What matters here is end-to-end delays - the time between when the packet was consumed and when the packet containing the ACK was sent out. Yes, it's true that you get a bigger RTT estimate if you don't correct for delays in the kernel or NIC, but those are just another piece of the plumbing now. If we fail to cover things like scheduling delays in the RTT estimate, we're just deluding ourselves about where the delays are."

@janaiyengar typed: "Yeah, I was thinking about this too, but it's text that we already had. FWIW, I think it's useful to separate out these delays, not because they shouldn't get used for PTO estimates, but because knowing component delays might be helpful. That said, I don't have a good use case for these component delays yet. OTOH, I've started that separation between stack-controlled delays and other delays in the text, it might be worth using that distinction here, and arguing that these delays ought to be part of the path RTT since they're not controlled delays."

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