Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] loss recovery of crypto packets is less aggressive, not more aggressive (#2435)

ianswett <> Mon, 11 February 2019 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FBA131024 for <>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 07:01:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.383
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.383 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 wXKbdd3zc1xr for <>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 07:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C254131050 for <>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 07:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 07:01:28 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1549897288; bh=39ezhuJcjl0OtWnxytp67+O/3CYu7we8L2W7eouRT4c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=npTaSo7jJsSPnFhfH6XjpQ0kOzuLc0h4F2KGEcfB18VjbaBZbwavVzsFh9kn34G1h V9WUiaFqKjJ6fOkb9mRoIAb82Acczb1Y9igKRMFWG4Kj3c80DAcjM0bJ0aGIjWxzhI NU1glzC0XISi5Giknwy6kPesaZNKThqt535rpemc=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2435/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] loss recovery of crypto packets is less aggressive, not more aggressive (#2435)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c618e482cd4d_17b03f9a176d45c094710"; 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
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: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:01:38 -0000

I don't believe we need a second timer, and in implementation, I don't think it's necessary.

However, others have previously suggested it may make the pseudocode easier to read.

I'll try a minimal fix first, and we can add a second alarm if it ends up being clearer.

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