Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] congestion window increase on every ACKed packet could result in bursty sends (#3094)

Vidhi Goel <> Wed, 05 February 2020 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46051200E7 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:40:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 QEj6eW8xCMuk for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4F612006E for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 17:40:15 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580866816; bh=s/y45ggawjLOFmsCWxMRvYphbIeAo/dbWRocPyF0xT4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=QrVHj+zyvNWoYfkMuOUhZdse5KeLUbMo3uqXtO+1NYQ1jCk+anyij1gvwH+zvMqug ueXWFht7sgHMJ0sRivYtuoia/NAJb0E7aqWS/1U0TrZphmjVHXLoE4rBNPxHPH3vTd mxqphxkts/CWYo1JCkv85amIBnWevehwidlQs0jI=
From: Vidhi Goel <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3094/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] congestion window increase on every ACKed packet could result in bursty sends (#3094)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e3a1cffe5744_13113fc9424cd95c137326"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: goelvidhi
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 01:40:19 -0000

There are two routes that we can take:
1. Specify clearly what 'delay` refers to in the below statement, which is done in #3351
Sending multiple packets into the network without any delay between them
creates a packet burst that might cause short-term congestion and losses. 
2. Change MUST pace to SHOULD and remove the 10 MSS burst size limit and provide general recommendation if an implementation doesn't pace. Something like:
Implementations SHOULD either use pacing or use another mechanism 
(for example, limit congestion window increase as specified by RFC 3465)
to introduce delay between successive transmissions. Implementations
that don't pace are at risk of underutilizing the network.

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