Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordered 0- and 0.5-RTT data (#1967)
janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 20 November 2018 21:11 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 8FF76128D0C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:11:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 PX6UD9OQtyIX for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A83A124D68 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:11:49 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1542748309; bh=UBkE6F7zeh41j/dVIqQcSDVANaPWyAuxZTF9TvukozU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jxVoqtBkEqCY5r27YzXog8ry100Y032BbkjNqth959AVQz1sGEnbOps3KcZBpcTu7 9I+P4g6YRZ8J2NtsW4hE/8P9IKc37VxQQbrAssNEentsIlLbWQzaTEYnKbwUdAc4md Z8BpAsoWMfJg8u5f2JoTerY7CYhef5WMjB0uezuI=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab6e452e3cb8c9e1b2aac0ea49517c2f2ed19b97e192cf00000001180c3a9592a169ce16831157@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1967/440430960@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1967@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1967@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordered 0- and 0.5-RTT data (#1967)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf478953c7b3_4c1e3fe207cd45b41722a0"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/e7LZPNIUaKnJr-3VPaznNtGJ3Sg>
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, 20 Nov 2018 21:11:52 -0000
This is a slightly involved fix. We basically need to distinguish packets whose drops do not necessarily indicate congestion vs those that do. As I see it, the packets whose drop does not necessarily indicate congestion are: 1. any handshake packet 2. any 0-RTT data (sent by client) 3. any 0.5-RTT data (sent by server) 4. data received before CFIN, which from the client's point of view is all data sent until ack for CFIN is received (thanks @siyengar for noting this). 1, 2, 3 are ok, but 4 is tricky, since congestive losses in the first RTT are indicators of a large initial window. I'm inclined to leave 4 out conservatively, since it delays the engagement of the CC machinery by a fair bit. -- 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/1967#issuecomment-440430960
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordered 0-… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordere… Subodh Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordere… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordere… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordere… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordere… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Loss events for reordere… Jana Iyemgar