[quicwg/base-drafts] Recovery period definition is odd (#3409)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 14:21 UTC

Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 06:21:50 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK72M6BA6XVJ2YJMOZF4I2YH5EVBNHHCCXJBSU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3409@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Recovery period definition is odd (#3409)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e397dfe56671_19ff3fcdfe0cd968204377"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/d4dKhagJU4rNoss4EYKOGrGCAVU>

This is weird in that it assumes some context that isn't provided:

> Recovery is a period of time beginning with detection of a lost packet or an increase in the ECN-CE counter. Because QUIC does not retransmit packets, it defines the end of recovery as a packet sent after the start of recovery being acknowledged.

Perhaps instead:

> A recovery period is entered when loss or ECN-CE marking of a packet is detected.  The recovery period ends when a packet sent during the recovery period is acknowledged.

This "Because QUIC does not retransmit packets" thing is unnecessary.  I'll open a PR.

-- 
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/3409

[quicwg/base-drafts] Recovery period definition i… Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Recovery period definiti… ianswett