[quicwg/base-drafts] recovery: initial reordering threshold (#3389)

mirjak <notifications@github.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 11:17 UTC

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:17:21 -0800
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYUB2D2AINWZWM63FF4G2ZUDEVBNHHCCBWNTU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3389@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] recovery: initial reordering threshold (#3389)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2980c172f4d_5ef13fb09eacd9681419a8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/cklTJZfnEXad0w3NZnSWKvAdKxw>

The doc says:
"Implementations that detect spurious retransmissions and increase the
   reordering threshold in packets or time MAY choose to start with
   smaller initial reordering thresholds to minimize recovery latency."

For the packet based threshold does that this say that a smaller initial value than 3 packets could be used? Is that really sensible?

And for a time based threshold I don't really understand what this means because the threshold is anyway calculated dynamically based on the RTT, so there is no real initial value. I guess there was a time when the threshold was a fixed value and this sentence is maybe a left-over?

-- 
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/3389

[quicwg/base-drafts] recovery: initial reordering… mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] recovery: initial reorde… ianswett
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] recovery: initial reorde… ianswett
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] recovery: initial reorde… mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] recovery: initial reorde… ianswett