Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 20 January 2020 05:57 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 6AF4D1200B3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:57:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.382 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 RbdYDAn9nEGA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78444120099 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca5950c.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.57]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AE62800B3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:57:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1579499847; bh=E68vPqjS3uniIAjlBma2/8RVnNaQxoViHQv5kIAlgPA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=oMSSZirBcmNB0H0EYhUQ6kuIz9/AvD+v8nDv7B6mch+3BuV61XI8OA8iSDkNiQ6m+ 83MkKDdEYEvfH1Fmgtr8PMRc6DOG51mKB36WvzZxlatWi8Zi2ip8YFfl6i0leD01vo w5VTNBB1Qu5CeiDtne3wN5LDpS1wXbvPGxX0Y/Ks=
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:57:27 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYBTWA6TR3JVR4Z6IN4GJZ4PEVBNHHCBMO65M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333/576118905@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3333@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Padding outside QUIC packet (#3333)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e254147b975d_6643fac7c4cd96c2094c1"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/YTFNX0nsSzCO10wfdvWxGgNObl4>
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, 20 Jan 2020 05:57:29 -0000

I have to admit that I found Kazuho's points about congestion control somewhat compelling.  However, I would say that there is nothing inherently wrong with the approach we take, except for the way that we count those junk bytes toward bytes-in-flight, and particularly how we remove them in the absence of a direct ACK.  But ACKs in Initial packets are worthless anyway, so counting them as though they were Initial probably goes most of the way to fixing the problem.  

Right now we don't account for these bytes at all, which avoids accounting errors, but might not be ideal in terms of congestion control.  INIT_CWND 10 becomes INIT_CWND "10 and a bit".

-- 
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/3333#issuecomment-576118905