Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)

MikkelFJ <> Wed, 03 April 2019 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB491205DD for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:46:09 -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 FS6a28M5aG0s for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E59211205E6 for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 12:46:01 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1554320761; bh=K8rcRk8j27ZsjwmuzZI068SSJgcBc8LcaeLLuOsvR8s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=frqkl5kkQDnsM0V5rfsLE0qGlfxew0dHSX6sVR2lahosuJKOJ94co1KAvi2w01bZx Z6BgE/s0T7pU6VN6YlGF8udtiYagQ830E5DZgfDNIR3Jlda0TLcD+Gfm0srA0qoFEz ZOTapibhn+hcmWii4ICsLBM1/zfkAlpwPv22mukI=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2568/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ca50d79de060_176a3ffabd4d45c03685f1"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:46:09 -0000

> We should also recommend that an endpoint that is only sending non-ack-eliciting packets should piggyback a PING frame along with an ACK roughly once an RTT so that its RTT estimate is reasonably current.

The sounds like a complication - and extra timer check and keeping track of whether ACK eliciting packets were sent. Also, it could lead to a lot of unnecessary PONG traffic. Is it really that important to update RTT that often, and if so, wouldn't it be better to revisit the idea of measuring RTT for non-ack eliciting packets dispite the potential downfalls?

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