Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit CWND increase in slow start (#3232)

Jana Iyengar <> Tue, 19 November 2019 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8240112022A for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 o3PMk0lCOUFd for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE796120220 for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B1B960C1F for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:51:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574128296; bh=kwvAzjDmTjfz2FWMuWBCMzursA8Xg9LoBUpHpYqDiAo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=09E+lXuWhA+QUQv6GPhK8TwWfEGOvWQlbmtVX3a5hsR2HPW1/JxzDS+0Nn1Osbl4Y h3GmvcJqpaRfpPwa/ISdINVzqpUP92hALtzjkl5mFV68WyrvE/7fBcjkEjuxuqQHM9 XxZphhy33J/I44pJlJBYLiK7skH6TFapKDcZQJGc=
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:51:36 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3232/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Limit CWND increase in slow start (#3232)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd34aa88916a_23dd3f84596cd9601749e3"; 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
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, 19 Nov 2019 01:51:39 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

Now that it's all put together, I think Ian's is a fair question. I'd also like to take the working group's sense on whether we should have this change in the pseudo code. Having it in the text makes sense to me -- that's just parity with TCP for non-paced QUIC flows.

That said, the pseudo code is in the Appendix for a reason -- it's perfectly reasonable to add things there or leave things out as we see fit. The code is an example of how things might be done. 

> @@ -775,7 +775,10 @@ Implementations MUST either use pacing or limit such bursts to the initial
 congestion window, which is recommended to be the minimum of
 10 * max_datagram_size and max(2* max_datagram_size, 14720)), where
 max_datagram_size is the current maximum size of a datagram for the connection,
-not including UDP or IP overhead.
+not including UDP or IP overhead. Implementations not using a pacer SHOULD

not including UDP or IP overhead. An implementation that does not use pacing SHOULD

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