Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define under-utilizing the congestion window (#2675)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 14 May 2019 01:18 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 EE4651200FF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 18:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 RCQkU39UJOFh for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 18:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D82612008C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2019 18:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 18:18:13 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557796693; bh=0jcLQd5SvRk4kxdjYwUjjacrONIx+0CjwhpBzXZFvFM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yY0oP5fdF+d/qpNB+MUZJchoyUvEAv3wumSQvhuY7HQW29WUY3lAfcHURld7GpxT0 qhw+XTAcVMlsRSGrcqXC7V0O4xJuJ/I1n60/C9ebW2dQP1n/xVJOvLfbzUJxL60iXg fd9HqiyrCsIG6bkcs3575goreDaV5Zbg+wOEjAHk=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3GSEQ3S4UNFB4OWMF245E5LEVBNHHBUUHC6A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675/review/236987797@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define under-utilizing the congestion window (#2675)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cda175550d84_6d7f3ff43a4cd95c44578"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/e1wZCy5PpQa0NEJzl78_PrwYgZ8>
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, 14 May 2019 01:18:16 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -848,9 +850,10 @@ and not fully utilize the congestion window due to this delay. A sender
 should not consider itself application limited if it would have fully
 utilized the congestion window without pacing delay.
 
-Bursting more than an intial window's worth of data into the network might
-cause short-term congestion and losses. Implemementations SHOULD either use
-pacing or reduce their congestion window to limit such bursts.
+Sending multiple packets into the network without any delay between them
+creates a burst of load that might cause short-term congestion and losses.

I added the definition of burst, because I realize it might not be obvious?

I think the core of #2686 is that the existing text is unclear.  The existing text says you SHOULD not burst more than an initial window into the network(ever), with nothing specific to coming out of quiescence.

-- 
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/2675#discussion_r283593774