IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Minor update to Persistent Congestion (#4414)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Tue, 08 December 2020 21:48 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 6F6CE3A119D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:48:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 cMGVRkL8qFjW for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 231373A119A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-aad5fbc.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.18]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3995D5C0796 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:48:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1607464102; bh=VuZ6TtouEEZgrolQWbBlTSS8X5oYpepDUSK9m0vaA+c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TinMaCOGuWhhzlM6IkOIwbGi3oOJ239weHykuZ5LKgV3lFaCqROR1TX2/Gz4587nF 7DQaQEmae7a22P8t63kAeihcyhrQE+xmMBoaLKdH9S0LjZYuiWKUPTpH3tQdgZVsG/ UZRGzotGYIQJcaR2VpHKdik8G11VwGO4FK+Z9F78=
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:48:22 -0800
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2ZLFJL7K6LOUPTWJN53PK2NEVBNHHCZYXEPQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4414/c741086325@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4414@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4414@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Minor update to Persistent Congestion (#4414)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5fcff4a636b5b_536119b4683517"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/cwAQsAV_Og54bXLqOwp8nGPpsQc>
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, 08 Dec 2020 21:48:25 -0000

@janaiyengar, I think you're saying the same thing.  The text as currently written suggests that:

- Send an ack-eliciting packet
- Send 100 non-ack-eliciting packets
- Send another ack-eliciting packet
- Receive an ack for the 100 non-ack-eliciting packets

If persistent congestion is the loss of all packets in that time frame, this isn't persistent congestion.  If persistent congestion is the loss of all *ack-eliciting* packets in that time frame, this is.  The change in the follow-up PRs brings it back to what I think was originally intended.

-- 
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/4414#issuecomment-741086325

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email