Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SHOULD implement adaptive packet threshold loss detection (#3571)

ianswett <> Fri, 10 April 2020 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB973A0931 for <>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 06:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, 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, 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 bMY0ggtC01te for <>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 06:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A090C3A092E for <>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 06:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FA18C0061 for <>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 06:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1586523619; bh=Uokmkjk4845kppSyidioJYGIAC+xmLsUZx3s+yXLiYQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=HKiGFJMoLUANPX0eogF6Ucy6MZCMx/lxdFycEyAigMvOIb8venmBWJowQbL8lGqQi sqnFu2p7u+SRc8QqAGXNGZegPoowiZf5ZRTtGifC3lTUG6jhUMmNDf0JOXwPlF0Dkt z3ed6o3nsKmaW/5a26QnlLQ1TRq/h92qxWgVKxmg=
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 06:00:19 -0700
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3571/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SHOULD implement adaptive packet threshold loss detection (#3571)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e906de399f2d_29ba3faba82cd95c1302c1"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:00:26 -0000

I still intend RACK to be an informational reference(PR uses a ?, not a !), not normative.  The intent was to update from an older informational reference(TCP-NCR) to a newer one.

This mechanism was deployed in Linux long before RACK.

It seems your point is that by changing from MAY to SHOULD, that puts a requirement upon us to fully describe the algorithm in text and pseudocode?  I don't see that as a hard requirement, and as you can see in my PR, I didn't intent to do that.

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