IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] compensation of ack_delay is fragile against errors (#2060)

janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 07 December 2018 01:04 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 8B63412D4E8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:04:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nu9pwOQVxQIc for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:04:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE47712E043 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:03:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 17:03:56 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1544144636; bh=i8yhVtoxhsbKMQPRpyBWVS+8bJNQrKwzeNNOZHZkjjE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=xs9rS6d3ysPrGEDeWcPdl0JMKHg4k8xLcSoXpCwFREI7yP9A6qi1eNQ1t6YQo46Qf EU8mglHp3gvtL1lVOV3tXKo/f3a9rJY+rYnWA+9Vp6ds9sCOsGqhf1na1yAP5WJ7eB x4cDIywxjctyWSVm/23trPC6Ga78fHqbLV3plYAQ=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab57e8cd720bf8e442c74bcaf39c58faca3ddfc70092cf00000001182188fc92a169ce16f4226e@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2060/445086245@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2060@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2060@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] compensation of ack_delay is fragile against errors (#2060)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c09c6fccde36_51413fca340d45c43883f0"; 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/XgEmbplFqjpuXBH6MH6LXhs5zl8>
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: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 01:04:05 -0000

@ianswett : Sorry, I was referring to a mis-reporting receiver in the case that the min_rtt is known.

In the case you mention, yes, that is a potential condition where a sender might have poor performance too, but I imagine this is not something we would expect to happen for very long, especially given all the handshake packets should be acked immediately.  Using a 1ms timer means for immediate means that's just a part of the min_rtt... nothing a sender can do about that. 

Basically, I don't think optimistically compensating at the sender for receiver delays is the way to go.  If the RTT sample seems broken, I would argue it should be ignored.

-- 
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/2060#issuecomment-445086245

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email