Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTO in handshake in recovery draft (#3467)

mirjak <notifications@github.com> Mon, 17 February 2020 17:53 UTC

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:53:03 -0800
From: mirjak <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZI7VNA25FUAWIJ4E54LACX7EVBNHHCDQZH3M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3467/587102617@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3467@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3467@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTO in handshake in recovery draft (#3467)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4ad2ff17693_40293fc51d2cd964330853"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/cwH9aQH4xb4anxvr37yaPGWG9RA>

I also just noticed that there is this sentence in the "sending probe packets" section:
"   Alternatively, instead of sending an ack-eliciting packet, the sender
   MAY mark any packets still in flight as lost."

and this sentence in the next "detection loss" section:
"   A PTO timer expiration event does not indicate packet loss and MUST
   NOT cause prior unacknowledged packets to be marked as lost."

So maybe that first sentence should have be removed as well? Not sure what is intended here...?

-- 
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/3467#issuecomment-587102617

[quicwg/base-drafts] RTO in handshake in recovery… mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTO in handshake in reco… mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTO in handshake in reco… ianswett
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTO in handshake in reco… Lars Eggert
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTO in handshake in reco… mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] RTO in handshake in reco… mirjak