IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify loss epoch (#3213)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Mon, 11 November 2019 02:27 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 64530120111 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:27:00 -0800 (PST)
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 zAouEhj4Parr for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E28A61200A4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:26:58 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:26:58 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1573439218; bh=fAZOJKFP2JnFhLLTh+xhJZX3N1c8V1d3K32OG7LCGKA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=JZVhk23DsL6eQNe4Xo5aFtU+MKKrohSjbjzjDhXqwhGkhlsDnY5N58XiycX7VarnV 0K7JAXYe6oyL6Q9Owd6j6dxAqVuGoDm/s9tZnskp3pUy/xK4stJOu0mpjuhxxUeQsN Comml+A3EGCKJo8nd4Qlkr4Tz8eauH28FzqBDKjw=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZURUJMJX4HRQHVLBN32X4XDEVBNHHB6CHZJU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3213/review/314669428@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3213@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3213@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify loss epoch (#3213)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc8c6f21ecf_31b83f9b8dccd9645067e3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/cOuLIgR5A5DSKkXYVK_5LQah2iY>
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 02:27:00 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -217,12 +217,13 @@ not available.
 
 ### Clearer Loss Epoch
 
-QUIC ends a loss epoch when a packet sent after loss is declared is
-acknowledged. TCP waits for the gap in the sequence number space to be filled,
-and so if a segment is lost multiple times in a row, the loss epoch may not
-end for several round trips. Because both should reduce their congestion windows
-only once per epoch, QUIC will do it correctly once for every round trip that
-experiences loss, while TCP may only do it once across multiple round trips.
+QUIC starts a loss epoch when a packet is lost and ends one when any packet

I actually think one reads more clearly, but maybe that's me?

-- 
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/3213#discussion_r344538081

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email