Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define under-utilizing the congestion window (#2675)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 17 May 2019 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BD0120161 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D4wt9vkI72xW for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 709E6120151 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 05:48:08 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558097288; bh=fIdffYzdUWtuC1j/sZE/l67+cG+4iMRkitSkmZkDhLk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=gQ/cT/5oW5hDIZOueaFJQBAekbGzZI+rvpj6PxGgl4lO/wh7E2qel9eiaP4nxsrlk NV4waY/D2pBZtbe5+IbjJKuL17gy0smylTWeQdqcHQgMJV7aGG4iSJ3zViPXkHX5bZ WmOuTqRPH//TzXebJs37jUht8fGhmM50JilGA6e0=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5WRYZC5QZC7TGOLBF25PQAREVBNHHBUUHC6A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675/review/238904844@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2675@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define under-utilizing the congestion window (#2675)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cdead884adf9_394a3f9a14ecd964213450"; 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-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/q3fXQCoIF6u6enqC8bVRwk9eF2Q>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:48:11 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -848,9 +850,10 @@ and not fully utilize the congestion window due to this delay. A sender
 should not consider itself application limited if it would have fully
 utilized the congestion window without pacing delay.
 
-Bursting more than an intial window's worth of data into the network might
-cause short-term congestion and losses. Implemementations SHOULD either use
-pacing or reduce their congestion window to limit such bursts.
+Sending multiple packets into the network without any delay between them
+creates a burst of load that might cause short-term congestion and losses.

I'd rather have it apply always, because I don't want to have one packet sent, and then a sender can burst the full window.  Making it specific to quiescence adds unnecessary complexity to the rules and may not accomplish the goal of mitigating the congestion caused to other flows of bursty sending.

I thought my existing text does that, but people are still confused, so better text would be greatly appreciated.

-- 
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/2675#discussion_r285110568