Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove ack_delay_exponent TP (#2670)

MikkelFJ <> Thu, 13 June 2019 06:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEBF212006E for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 o61FfUm9fapS for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C8F212004C for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 23:12:32 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560406352; bh=mWL9uDit9396qJsr6nUDlcMGOepxc7Ohgs0+TEUk9AI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=T+8Ts5bHHahkoDZwRLcnewWhHq3JM84YnATcrR68NfWpzF2Wefj9As7vB6kB2sDKc 9CSX9rduS38k9yU3/PZNqBHVEGtbpmdJ9+P7jYJFgwjVCxGDLEHo8Wlk/3jtcYgOnp VtHM3k36T6gDuc6WB2SqDeNoJt+o8I0Rms1xjDp0=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2670/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove ack_delay_exponent TP (#2670)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d01e950b6630_7f153f82198cd964114187c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:12:36 -0000

Maybe it is worth saving those bytes. But another argument not prominent in the discussion is the risk of getting the scale wrong since it applies to all paths and might be hardcoded in implementations that do not adapt to different networking environments. This is why I think the fp16 approach is better (with overhead slightly above a multiplication), but I can see why people dislike a non-standard algorithm.

Therefore the question is really if the bytes saved are worth the problems a bad scale might induce.

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