Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Proposed fix for #3987 (#4071)

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

@ianswett commented on this pull request.

I think we're using PTO in two cases because we want to allow time for the PTO to fire twice, but I could be wrong?

> @@ -2214,6 +2214,11 @@ defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}} is RECOMMENDED.  That is:
    validation_timeout = max(3*PTO, 6*kInitialRtt)
 ~~~
 
+The PTO includes the peer's maximum expected acknowledgement delay. This is not

In this case, we use PTO to allow for the PTO to fire twice before giving up, correct?  I think explaining it in terms of max ack delay is confusing.

> @@ -2693,6 +2698,10 @@ ensures that connections are not closed after new activity is initiated.
 
 To avoid excessively small idle timeout periods, endpoints MUST increase the
 idle timeout period to be at least three times the current Probe Timeout (PTO).
+As defined in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}, the PTO includes the peer's maximum expected

Again, I think 3 * PTO is so there is sufficient opportunity for the PTO to fire before the connection idle timeouts?

-- 
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/pull/4071#pullrequestreview-482118572