Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should platform delays be included in ack-delay? (#2596)

Kazuho Oku <> Tue, 09 April 2019 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC86120388 for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 20:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.002 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XzZU_qa_FMKl for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 20:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96C98120290 for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 20:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 20:35:46 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1554780946; bh=WqUI+Snll6W2gELLk+CDOg4LJCrOjXglaNrSNJvJCEA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1UwCvKbdwcu+HGLJ2tqQuTpGn0dHMSe2Wu9b3aBgTiIuXH3VD6HcSsv1RRlqaHE9E Wm+zCyX1oy47yYVcK5P2sizcKHGSHK+CDrsrhDMTAeHPRT0ybCjuyiiLmMAAYDLTAP LmQlN9Bw4Cq3HLV7WGV6abJ/0VQ6E+ojkY9AS4KM=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2596/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should platform delays be included in ack-delay? (#2596)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cac13128a991_50e3f85b24d45b447193"; 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
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 03:35:49 -0000

> I've started that separation between stack-controlled delays and other delays in the text, it might be worth using that distinction here, and arguing that these delays ought to be part of the path RTT since they're not controlled delays.

:+1: I share the view with @martinthomson and @janaiyengar that ack-delay should represent only the delay introduced intentionally by the QUIC stack. "stack-controlled delay" sounds like a good way of explaining them.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: