Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't store or retransmit PATH_RESPONSE frames, avoid buffering (#2729)

Yang Chi <notifications@github.com> Tue, 11 June 2019 23:46 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 A784B12008B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 HYylJzIugbfv for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
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 C716312001E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:46:01 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1560296761; bh=tWK4CU3Cw+3IAwASMQIvi/CQM0OIPovZPRllWF1zO8k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=eYpF0nns3MfHxnG9EhkDJd7rfnuH4+dTH8ucrEf/aYv/irUZqmg7C8OMoe9D5g04r 8LHW2WAf+om7/r6ORQ6GqXufWfCLmxfIZBr85IobOovc1Xo8UYv3GJuenXQ7LMRqQN 6hBjjKAXsDHr52scbUrLG0n3l5IaV/ud+MKHxF2g=
From: Yang Chi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2EPYUAGQ2NUWCNHJN3BVX3TEVBNHHBVGEZF4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729/c501065019@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2729@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't store or retransmit PATH_RESPONSE frames, avoid buffering (#2729)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d003d39baa4f_51653fb4bf6cd960106068"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: yangchi
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/lU8TlM3TKN70HyuEy9cEw6-I60g>
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, 11 Jun 2019 23:46:05 -0000

Should there also be changes in the recovery specs? Now that PATH_RESPONSE shouldn't be retransmitted, loss timer may not be set if the only inflight packet has only PATH_RESPONSE frame (unless one wants to waste CPU). But it still is an ack-eliciting packet. In the current recovery doc, as long as ack-eliciting packets are  inflight, loss timer will be set up. So this sounds buggy to me. Does this make sense?

-- 
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/pull/2729#issuecomment-501065019