Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Idle timeout editorial fixes (#3444)

Martin Thomson <> Sun, 09 February 2020 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BD412006D for <>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 14:56:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 mzf1h4lYLlgg for <>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 14:56:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CB5C120052 for <>; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 14:56:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 14:56:13 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581288973; bh=LFHs3MmmHuITqwlgKMPTPAfCpdpWftcmadYtU59DZkc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=d10CI5ZmAd7uqYRY3eTBbgkehgu7rN41eLB1Y8e0NM22J4XZFhMD3myIZbv3YypPr HlNqgqAzZ6lXlb9w6mSvwTtu8SsqLkFFbHAfFvkFuE+6nJqil2iIaAOEKvgQiltX4E 8B+Y21uEN1DsuVnDM6w3cVHHuhMKZZ5hmfpBPvY0=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3444/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Idle timeout editorial fixes (#3444)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e408e0d396cd_27c23fec44acd968194192"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 22:56:16 -0000

martinthomson requested changes on this pull request.

I think that the shift in the explanation misses the important point for a lesser one.

> @@ -2420,20 +2420,21 @@ close ({{immediate-close}}) if it abandons the connection prior to the effective
 An endpoint restarts its idle timer when a packet from its peer is received
-and processed successfully.  The idle timer is also restarted when sending
-an ack-eliciting packet (see {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}), but only if no other
-ack-eliciting packets have been sent since last receiving a packet.  Restarting
-when sending packets ensures that connections do not prematurely time out when
-initiating new activity.  An endpoint might need to send packets to avoid an
-idle timeout if it is unable to send application data due to being blocked on
-flow control limits; see {{flow-control}}.
+and processed successfully.  The idle timer is also restarted when sending the
+first ack-eliciting packet (see {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}) after receiving a packet.
+Only restarting when sending after receipt of a packet ensures the idle timeout
+is not excessively lengthened past the time the peer's timeout has expired.

This sentence doesn't really capture what the original text was attempting to explain.  That is, the original text intended to explain that a reset on receipt is insufficient because local attempts to restart communication might still result in the idle timeout period lapsing.  This says something different.

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