Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Persistent congestion pseudocode to match text (#4010)

Jana Iyengar <> Tue, 18 August 2020 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD4E3A0D03 for <>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 qo_Fdcb37bVS for <>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CDD53A0D01 for <>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C60B5C0D45 for <>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1597786077; bh=0PHycgD60oQIXkUWPJIDnMg4zsVnx9OWj8kk4k8FV8A=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qEvyDFBbWbtkrqbC5/YbTrsc7RGja5x+VBQLif5NNKODr+IQymdu+kFq+QSivJVnh ot+MhlsTF67bbQjcTUD7kqeZ49H40CmSUfWEuiSINoyGWM4j5qYsUxbyNUy4iymZ67 QlQFRqOiCI7sqSvAnWVx1pxCjnOek+sxuQJbX/YA=
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:27:57 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4010/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Persistent congestion pseudocode to match text (#4010)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3c47dd7cc4c_56c4196444032c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 21:27:59 -0000

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

>       // Determine if all packets in the time period before the
      // largest newly lost packet, including the edges and
      // across all packet number spaces, are marked lost.
-     return AreAllPacketsLost(largest_lost, congestion_period)
+     return AreAllPacketsLost(largest_lost, pc_period)

This needs to change. The idea now is that there's a window of packet loss that is pc_period long in time. The comment up there needs to change too.

How about:
// Determine if all packets were lost in a period long enough
// to declare persistent congestion.
return AreAllPacketsLostInPeriod(lost_packets, pc_period)

You'll have to change the parameter to `InPersistentCongestion()` to be `lost_packets`, but that's easily done, since this function is called from `OnPacketsLost()`.

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