IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Suggest endpoints may recognize acks after loss is declared (#3956)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 16:52 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC42C3A1B1B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i42wPhVxrPi0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 302C83A1B14 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-d1d6e31.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d1d6e31.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.105.50]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76665E1EE6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595868743; bh=A+om8V9pn0IB91Z0aN+72g/VIyDqTXe97/WoPWFtnf0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=taK8J9FybPKSKIR93CsWXSh8X6QCdZem+qI5GPRAtvE5nh/HzmIwswv0iUdV8kD8h VE95D8XJYvVIPL71hwi41W9h45cGXsTSfu73NbpcrCVUZqOvYOmv5YhKDpakm7HL5/ o85R+swMyPVLw7+7uM8MNV1KRzq0IVNQWRjMHQUw=
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:52:23 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2O7JFYAL2UY666XX55FLTUPEVBNHHCPIHZLY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3956/664513327@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3956@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3956@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Suggest endpoints may recognize acks after loss is declared (#3956)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f1f0647685cb_47623f8eff4cd95c858ad"; 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/WUspLy9yTM4PWNQY2OVoVjc0OHM>
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:52:26 -0000

@ianswett : I've changed it to 1 PTO. We've commonly used PTO as a time period for everything else in the transport, and so it's convenient to use PTO here too. Ultimately, this is the amount of time you're holding on to packets marked as lost, so the extra time waiting for a PTO (over an RTT) really shouldn't make any measurable difference. 

If you still think we should say RTT, I'm fine with that.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3956#issuecomment-664513327

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status