[quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed bytes in flight (#4004)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 17 August 2020 04:53 UTC

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 21:53:33 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZFZEMZ36ZBS2MRCEN5IXXE3EVBNHHCRBXL6Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4004@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed bytes in flight (#4004)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3a0d4d72833_281b196497871a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/mEE_6uBFvtio4gIvIuzy2JD9Rbk>

It might pay to reconcile:

> An endpoint MUST NOT send a packet if it would cause bytes_in_flight (see
{{vars-of-interest}}) to be larger than the congestion window, unless the packet
is sent on a PTO timer expiration; see {{pto}}.

And

> When entering recovery, a single packet MAY be sent even if bytes in flight
now exceeds the recently reduced congestion window.

Now, you might implement the latter using PTO machinery, but that text doesn't really suggest that in any way.

-- 
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/issues/4004

[quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed bytes … Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed by… Marten Seemann
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed by… Martin Thomson
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed by… mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed by… ianswett
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed by… mirjak
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed by… ianswett
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Two reasons to exceed by… ianswett