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

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 03 April 2019 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583CA120043 for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 15:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_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 0eUbD6vBaNfs for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 15:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47BA91200CC for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 15:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 15:36:54 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1554331015; bh=3YrBZby7Gk+9YNsCfDQIJuwFLWWt9VO7qRdIHdtDTF4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=028Byh1w1vllFwWF71t+7LtPzVlNq1o7LZz90LQgKNanmwBt78E68OfBOtVWqVMir QKK7FIvjqr+XEokQ/xto31tMZNQBJMFLtpqI9Dj4NLLmzKjjvpAbDpa7QoJs9BlkzQ rrOKxRAYq1+gk5sFNwJ2qPn3uY0uetKp/R16LrgM=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5ca53586c4c8a_5f8e3fc63d2d45b8534f2"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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 22:36:58 -0000

My +1 as well.

I think it's reasonable to recommend endpoints to send PINGs, if it wants to calculate RTT when it is not sending data.

First of all, this is _not_ a departure from the design we have in TCP; in TCP, an endpoint that is not sending data has no way of inferring RTT from ACKs.

Second, requiring the peer to send ACKs for ACK-only packets promptly makes the specification complex. Because such a mechanism cannot be solely based on a timer (because ACK-of-ACK cannot be sent without piggybacking), even though it needs to be based on a timer (otherwise the endpoint cannot receive an ACK in a timely manner).

Considering these two aspects, I think using PINGs is simpler. Also, endpoints can choose different strategies on how frequent they would send PING; some might send a PING every one second (or 1 RTT), or a download-only application might not send PINGs at all.

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