Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify time threshold vs crypto timer (#2620)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Mon, 15 April 2019 21:32 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 AD73212023E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 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_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 p9YkIr9NFXC4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD10A1201D7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:32:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1555363942; bh=/H5UNlUhMwN4do/8u+WiC/YnTw5hcylDcYyO4hV6YP0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aU0K8etlJQh7od0SBzEeJ6aSBp00LaN21rv6xg65jOZI6KmiBMLAdoShQ6vHScTWl MJ9lWcGGHTDpA/80G/Fw3oekN5Rlf4bsFnqRp70XgQi0RT15snFP3dUiRtnNTeG46A g8F1tv14fYREaZuBi8N7R0VtNxu3Jdhp3cNmcKus=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abf852d8882180dee93d55f0ddba6e164dc08dfdad92cebac22ae692a169ce19d3a2f6@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2620/review/226891264@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2620@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2620@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify time threshold vs crypto timer (#2620)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cb4f8669e5b5_f613f843dad45c0688b5"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/lYh-fjBT6ZQ6rqOE1TY3LJZOGwI>
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 21:32:26 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -537,8 +537,13 @@ and otherwise it MUST send an Initial packet in a UDP datagram of at least
 1200 bytes.
 
 The crypto retransmission timer is not set if the time threshold
-{{time-threshold}} loss detection timer is set.  When the crypto
-retransmission timer is active, the probe timer ({{pto}}) is not active.
+{{time-threshold}} loss detection timer is set.  The time threshold loss
+detection timer is both expected to expire earlier than the crypto
+retransmission timeout and be much less likely to spuriously retransmit data.
+The Initial and Handshake packet number spaces are typically going to have a

If the number of packets is small, it's unlikely you'll hit the packet threshold loss detection, making time threshold much more important.

-- 
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/2620#discussion_r275553163