IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why min CWND of 2 instead of 1 (#3586)

Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com> Sun, 19 April 2020 22:46 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 B4F973A07CE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=0.7, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 rCP_Ge5AqrPO for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C9183A07CB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-1b8c660.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-1b8c660.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.18.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5055C6004B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1587336375; bh=KDZ9zSsGqUzF0Qzo/qoyXmCFtBdjBrgqx/BXv5Jo8KA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DS8ZFdmy9WrfWXrKkxCx4YHaw6SQa0WP+7FDwtDz8edcGxe4RhkNo3NKPQ63wkgIq FFOQVFt7pyrKQBeFk2ehnnrRQipPZLpjSXtwjDUEIkqZqDcuh33tvLpCX1qiSsCR9x zF06kTsLZY5W3kPabRSTLtM7GwZIvIyjqXZhZxzA=
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:46:15 -0700
From: Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK26KODDFYTRKYZH4H54VC23PEVBNHHCH3TLYY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3586/review/396070865@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3586@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3586@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why min CWND of 2 instead of 1 (#3586)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e9cd4b7d5fdd_15f13fa6feecd968143635"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: pravb
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/drcTYQzLEUpXyIzFzBkVTvFSaBI>
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: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:46:19 -0000

@pravb commented on this pull request.



> @@ -245,6 +245,13 @@ QUIC specifies a time-based definition to ensure one or more packets are sent
 prior to a dramatic decrease in congestion window; see
 {{persistent-congestion}}.
 
+### Increase the min congestion window to 2 packets

Use "minimum congestion window" to stay consistent with rest of the draft. FWIW RFC 5681 for TCP refers to this as loss window LW. Not sure if we want to use the same term in this draft.

-- 
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/3586#pullrequestreview-396070865

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email