IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that persistent congestion is a contigous loss across all PN spaces (#3940)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 23 July 2020 00:53 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 324F63A0AB6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 qa4z6L8T266F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE55D3A0AB5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-5fb2734.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5fb2734.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.19.27]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432D7E1271 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595465635; bh=PNK+ncUAxm9CwOZmKBc7xj0U30mza+rXPPJ/GQbwY/E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AirE1GoyxO2sKJugunI+HCBxdFioRJP3lDkEON3nbMRc/kpS5UHWCnjyaw94yG4pz MfYMp89lNHKZHQp93kvoxEbuQ1XSaU9Z6KV3t2Gp2xgeEofTg1KB/2vY5gMQQybbzq r0ZplCa4BURPQvLh6sEj66I4pNfKmZRNWyeMFAG8=
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:53:55 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7237OXAIFRVNGF5QF5ETAKHEVBNHHCPC6KAM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3940/c662769117@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3940@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3940@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] clarify that persistent congestion is a contigous loss across all PN spaces (#3940)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f18dfa334875_1c553f9ae5ccd96c7667e5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/ek3XVT8kFTG9QudYmrvi23j4wlE>
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:53:57 -0000

@marten-seemann It sounds like that your complaint is not against the change in this PR by itself. Reading your comments on #3939 it is my understanding that you think the change to the text is fine.

I'd assume that your complaint is rather about the pseudo-code not clarifying how QUIC stacks can implement `InPersistentCongestion`.

Regarding how, I could well be wrong, but I think it is not that difficult to implement InPersistentCongestion (see https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3889#discussion_r459160599).

I am positive to adding a description regarding how QUIC stacks might implement InPersistentCongestion, though I am not sure if we can come up with a pseudo-code that explains the algorithm linked above, considering the fact that we do not describe how an endpoint might implement a sentmap. So maybe adding a few lines of comments to the pseudo-code would be a good thing to do.

-- 
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/3940#issuecomment-662769117

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email