Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss Application-Limited Sending (#1637)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1047,6 +1045,19 @@ paces the sending of any packets in excess of the initial congestion window.
 A sender MAY implement alternate mechanisms to update its congestion window
 after idle periods, such as those proposed for TCP in {{?RFC7661}}.
 
+## Application Limited Sending
+
+The congestion window should not be increased in slow start or congestion
+avoidance when it is not fully utilized.  The congestion window could be
+under-utilized due to insufficient application data to send or flow control

```suggestion
under-utilized due to insufficient application data or flow control credit.
```

> @@ -1047,6 +1045,19 @@ paces the sending of any packets in excess of the initial congestion window.
 A sender MAY implement alternate mechanisms to update its congestion window
 after idle periods, such as those proposed for TCP in {{?RFC7661}}.
 
+## Application Limited Sending
+
+The congestion window should not be increased in slow start or congestion
+avoidance when it is not fully utilized.  The congestion window could be
+under-utilized due to insufficient application data to send or flow control
+limits.

```suggestion
```

> @@ -1047,6 +1045,19 @@ paces the sending of any packets in excess of the initial congestion window.
 A sender MAY implement alternate mechanisms to update its congestion window
 after idle periods, such as those proposed for TCP in {{?RFC7661}}.
 
+## Application Limited Sending
+
+The congestion window should not be increased in slow start or congestion
+avoidance when it is not fully utilized.  The congestion window could be
+under-utilized due to insufficient application data to send or flow control
+limits.
+
+When the sender is pacing (see {{pacing}}) packets, the sender may be unable
+to use the full congestion window for a period of time after receiving
+acknowledgements, due to pacing.  In this case, the sender should not consider
+themselves application limited and should allow the congestion window to
+increase.

Suggested rephrasing:  "A sender that uses pacing (see {{pacing}}) might delay sending of packets and might not fully utilize the congestion window due to this delay.  A sender should not consider itself application limited if it might have utilized the entire congestion window without pacing delay."

"When the sender paces packets (see {{pacing}}), it might not send 
to use the full congestion window for a period of time after receiving
acknowledgements, due to pacing.  In this case, the sender should not consider
themselves application limited and should allow the congestion window to
increase."

-- 
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/1637#pullrequestreview-196879726