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

ianswett <> Mon, 11 November 2019 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64530120111 for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:27:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zAouEhj4Parr for <>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E28A61200A4 for <>; 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;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3213/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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: