Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Guidelines for Retransmitting Lost Data (#2103)

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Tue, 15 January 2019 18:28 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 32303130F02 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:28:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.149 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_28=1.404, 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 dlREpS7IQ9yu for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:28:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71273130EFA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:28:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:28:40 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1547576920; bh=wqPToRQR1XPsChl6hkrnhOrM53s5J9OixcuVF1JUEjA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=FXpcwuPCMzgCsOLIAjTdVYTydYVHkG70L4bkxedmrmNBy1RnzNsJhACh4SEqfBRoI kuEN2Nm9mjZIZUh2zDjsZLlNzSMfwvjVphY+4gtj+LJPsEXEDqeGRjEDnH8EJ9oKrz JyYmoRk29YdYjSrfjBj4gvI/4hrt6pg4/p3lRF/U=
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab6280254b57628e3ed803e89b6ae38bb97c5d4b8792cf000000011855e85892a169ce17261a55@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2103/454499260@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2103@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2103@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Guidelines for Retransmitting Lost Data (#2103)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c3e2658a3bdc_23d23fe95ced45c4314df"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
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/jFUuyNbR8oeN5IgERzFHAuRWY00>
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, 15 Jan 2019 18:28:43 -0000

The current text is fine as a normative spec. The point of the issue, though, is to provide some suggestions on how to pick the "retransmitted unacknowledged data". It is not certainly not obvious to me how this logic should go.

There's a somewhat broader discussion about how we're defining loss and loss response that isn't going to go well over github. Can we leave this open until I can try to explain to you and Jana in Tokyo?

-- 
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/2103#issuecomment-454499260