Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Persistent congestion interaction with app limited state (#2593)

ianswett <> Wed, 10 April 2019 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A40F61203E3 for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 2BCTdvJFIAru for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339D01205CD for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=01F5lxR3vyrrv5NFfj3iO5ZgxqA=; b=CwQqCFY3rzd7wdTC yykmr91+5yynEAh96UEm2L6V1Reb6FO2wW+z4vYrTfKqhKraOx5YyIRs9hPHiLBu FadTZ/cZR01P/QgIFKSbMcZqzYRiI0HHcF2+h5VF3ximlqOfQ8UowXZiQ2ILj2CN Lj2lYDBiHqbru05IPwbrwgeFcqg=
Received: by with SMTP id filter1142p1las1-20078-5CAE4235-23 2019-04-10 19:21:25.725467331 +0000 UTC m=+154255.908883106
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id YgSZUXEWRgCH2o28zWmw8g for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:21:25.631 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A35B80339 for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:21:25 +0000
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2593/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Persistent congestion interaction with app limited state (#2593)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cae423598ce3_7e2e3fce2f0d45c0162774"; 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-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak0qiX0zokU6iGbBgiF5kamTr2MPJetw9QTRkk O7aONCDPy+ZxclSfpjEVG5Q1KYdhA9CbmPfZUYD2EohPhydP2CXfhMT5pEHj/xfzbe8CgooibanZ4D bqu1E+j1dUqKwBApw6eDFVdodlFCaqez1QmHIWUQIILz/eizjhqfcMxJHPvz2fzqqOgwNkLnLJ+/F3 A=
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:21:29 -0000

There's text on this edge case, but not the interaction with persistent congestion.
"When a PTO timer expires, new or previously-sent data may not be
   available to send and packets may still be in flight.  A sender can
   be blocked from sending new data in the future if packets are left in
   flight.  Under these conditions, a sender SHOULD mark any packets
   still in flight as lost.  If a sender wishes to establish delivery of
   packets still in flight, it MAY send an ack-eliciting packet and re-
   arm the PTO timer instead."

I think if you follow either suggestion listed, you shouldn't inadvertently declare persistent congestion from being idle, since in one case you immediately declare packet loss and in the other, you'd only declare persistent congestion if the subsequent PTOs established it?

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