Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is it OK to place retransmitted frames at the end of the queue? (#2374)

Marten Seemann <> Mon, 28 January 2019 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69678130F36 for <>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:09:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 TaGma0K9imsf for <>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4040130F09 for <>; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:09:54 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1548644994; bh=QTv+sr6DIoUIUTuapFTXOPds4YQaGliBkzSmKjdJjlo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=C7KyyPOaA1HYSPlCUgqG1iGUubUH8tcK8B//zrg6Stnn6PqYlIFmXXbyLE22y0LhB y/eMbIqpg7C3HEPBAXJptnCG1zDWtgoRbCOLq3801PXAfbEYsD2VImNoCxs+mUdP4D 60sI3d7UM+dp6/Vv65u3QvWaF0bqEljEnpsHoWj4=
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2374/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is it OK to place retransmitted frames at the end of the queue? (#2374)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c4e7282a55e3_6f513f8a38ed45c01051059"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 03:09:57 -0000

The spec already [says](

> Endpoints SHOULD prioritize retransmission of data over sending new data, unless priorities specified by the application indicate otherwise (see Section 2.3).

It seems like Quinn is ignoring this advice.

> Picoquic found that 10 seconds passed without making any progress, since no data was passed to the application, and closed the connection.

I think this rule is part of the problem. If there's still data arriving, there's no need to close the connection.

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