Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Skip a packet number when sending one PTO packet (#2952)

Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 07:12 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 1240A12013B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 00:12:53 -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 PmNhMlqQvnls for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 00:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AA3C120137 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 00:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:12:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1565075570; bh=kk4TZUZzs/cHUYqdVXKxo0kXd90cJR17A2ObE6MnvpY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=lC7ZldppkF9sStENZwevc51fue7MT0Lr5/z24ba0W7tgBYEni5rOh9nQP+iEHRIUB OhPRjdCUFGSGYm0MCStCshuJ9vsGZSGQOx6JtBxrZL8CuzGr4ephHv1KQcG4Jt9rn6 ngRrIXRsDcJQZJJHeho8vAylvKhe5D/fgaim8Z5o=
From: Lars Eggert <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZEZ7TVB7XYDLASPHN3KZNPFEVBNHHBYY33OM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2952/review/271153222@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2952@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2952@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Skip a packet number when sending one PTO packet (#2952)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d49287232704_31203fe15c2cd9681442c2"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: larseggert
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/bW5sX90zLmG9g9TDeWDB6QTitzs>
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: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 07:12:53 -0000

larseggert commented on this pull request.



> @@ -601,7 +601,9 @@ removed from bytes in flight when the Initial and Handshake keys are discarded.
 When a PTO timer expires, a sender MUST send at least one ack-eliciting packet
 as a probe, unless there is no data available to send.  An endpoint MAY send up
 to two full-sized datagrams containing ack-eliciting packets, to avoid an
-expensive consecutive PTO expiration due to a single lost datagram.
+expensive consecutive PTO expiration due to a single lost datagram.  When only
+sending a single packet on PTO, senders can skip a packet number to elicit a
+faster acknowledgement.
 

Why are we recommending to skip packet numbers over just including a PING? The former causes more overhead in the reverse direction.

-- 
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/2952#discussion_r310911132