[quicwg/base-drafts] Why is Min RTT kept for the connection lifetime? (#2908)

Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com> Thu, 18 July 2019 13:14 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 59464120270 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 0PU5U95d3tQM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AD4E12008F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:14:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1563455662; bh=Xhv7JUKZXiGz6vdH7xzZ7IYyV0AWDveAnuBZXVzA52M=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ogaGDgAzG6tWm9H7crdVU+77IVPzk534dJ5uOlpx5v3paBxZg+peG0qDJEvtQUEmi qR6qk7PjHkB70MFvl55Chb32XTZ25ujfrk5dmU+WurbMWfTLC7Ld7gC/oryRC4jQky u/wzT3Ngyd4xw0NWqCbHUN+f9Izv65EIjUjaLKxY=
From: Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3JEHVQUZY7H2FGCOV3HWRS5EVBNHHBYAADQY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2908@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why is Min RTT kept for the connection lifetime? (#2908)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d3070ae8d924_614d3f7e840cd9643417eb"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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/ZjKmHdqmKif7oC6--88U_Icq0fc>
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: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:14:25 -0000

Section 5.2 of draft-ietf-quic-recovery:

(1)   the minimum value observed over the lifetime of the connection

- Why a minimum specified over the entire lifetime? There are paths where the initial RTT may the lower, I am unable to see why that artefact should have a long-term impact on the connection. Even if it is just a change in traffic sharing the path’s bottleneck, it still isn’t something that needs to have impact for the lifetime of a connection. Can’t we decay the value somehow, so that it reflect the recent min_RTT.

draft-ietf-quic-recovery, and here is why a smaller than current min_RTT is problematic:
(2)  MUST NOT apply the adjustment if the resulting RTT sample is
      smaller than the min_rtt.  This limits the underestimation that a
      misreporting peer can cause to the smoothed_rtt.

- How do I understand this works with paths exhibiting varying path delay?  I still can’t fathom what will happen when the lowest RTT in recent time is much larger than the min_RTT, because the RTT floor has increased (e.g. because of a change at L2). I see some rather strange behaviour in traces of QUIC when there is large long-term jitter. At present, I think this results in making inappropriate adjustments?


-- 
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/2908