[quicwg/base-drafts] Clarification for asymmetric links (return congestion, as well as limit to throughput) (#3885)

Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 10:47 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 125473A0860 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 03:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 qP24PbcHEiL5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 03:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE9BF3A085F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 03:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c53a806.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c53a806.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.45]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07056A05E5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 03:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594291628; bh=Bt6S5soLo31rhb8ATzs0WAZ7hXVx3JPEkRPwhwf/R9k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GIi6XAPgqcf9kItNZsqT05nDtkCyQvN12hovtfua3fZP2pnKxd3RtvReWv+zf6hkm CY2+/CZNAtCO+afz0jV3QDasnQHFK3QC/5BJfeGnO6eVXkBY3WEAYmhKLd1TDYhR5T kEvB9Fv9z/pNfhZWe9E6PLKSmSIjI/XyfpjsgB+0=
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 03:47:07 -0700
From: Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK64B5VIACICQKL2IN55CLLKXEVBNHHCN6VMWY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3885@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarification for asymmetric links (return congestion, as well as limit to throughput) (#3885)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f06f5abec165_1e643fb854ecd960228721"; 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/aufbVRyRHYyUXYIg6xPZwR2Zwys>
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, 09 Jul 2020 10:47:10 -0000

I promised to raise an issue relating to this text:
"It can also improve connection throughput on severely asymmetric links; see Section 3 of [RFC3449]."

This partly addresss the case, but it does not yet note the implications of the return path traffic on congestion of the return path. I think this is a useful addition, because it helps alert the reader of the tradeoff ... which can be quite important for half-duplex/shared radio, etc where the spectrum consumed sending an ACK can even outweigh the cost of sending a data packet (because they use different design of PHY).

I suggest:
"It can improve connection throughput using severely asymmetric links and can also reduce the volume of acknowledgment traffic using return path capacity; see Section 3 of [RFC3449]."


-- 
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/3885