Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Adaptive thresholds are useful (#3572)

Matt Olson <> Thu, 23 April 2020 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543033A0D52 for <>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 lCNOknSUiQ26 for <>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAA183A0D51 for <>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877E31C0657 for <>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1587662727; bh=t/XYFddpCPsItZ3lfFW3LQu1i7VfrIPVgX99gFQH6XA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=b46IZdn/y4ePAF+PbzaPzpqwSq8opkV42Q+JTt5MOz/y8SoCLpoL/laCCex85F89R ReqwmdPVJQWGpqq1u2zlhILPJSUzYuV+PkIHaI70z8n58tfNbeZPdjfWGj+t2o4kyJ hl9CK+599MPM0g8GFcmezP4/S2vYzE9wHUBMZVzY=
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:25:27 -0700
From: Matt Olson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3572/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Adaptive thresholds are useful (#3572)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ea1cf8777f02_36893fad17ecd96c62622a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: maolson-msft
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, 23 Apr 2020 17:25:30 -0000

I see, thanks for pointing me to that. But Jana's ask seems to me to be all about SHOULD versus MAY, and orthogonal to referencing NCR vs RACK; if it was a SHOULD, then you'd still have the same incompletely-specified-algorithm problem with NCR. It seems to me that now that SHOULD is removed, Jana would agree that RACK is a better reference since it maps more cleanly to QUIC.

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