Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Persistent congestion period: text and pseudo-code don't agree (#3972)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

Option 1 and 2 have a behavior difference with the following implication:

With option 2, a sender might mark persistent congestion with fewer PTOs than if the sender had a more accurate RTT estimate. This is arguably not a significant concern, since:
- the sender will still have sent at least two packets in that duration and marked them lost, since you need two ack-eliciting packets to be lost to declare persistent congestion; and
- the number of packets sent is also sensitive to how the application sends, and a sender cannot rely on that anyway.

Option 2 has the benefit that it is simpler to implement.

On balance, I think Option 2 is better, though it does make this a design change.

-- 
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/3972#issuecomment-665777673