Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define idle period for congestion control (#2555)

ianswett <> Tue, 26 March 2019 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F61B120485 for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_32=0.001, 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 Xleovm5G6saW for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E79112047C for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:51:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1553615489; bh=0BxKxMiB3/PMI8Jm1ssyv8TgDq+OrCi6xmTy6Bbr2Hk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=m67jGOQGGLd8skNhVH8Kp+Mreb5u6suwWPjrpbtGTH7Ctbt2UzChfIZNXcJ5E61w9 HZ84/qJTuiK00riAEdRPaAoZF6u8zIm4ytT11VRee93NCrDQFWPODOQhLqnXUEIVcO uSImpXoHi5LszJfgmMyGwkJLJCswkMoRV9JP2kXY=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2555/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define idle period for congestion control (#2555)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9a4a8153430_1dbd3fc48bcd45bc1396f5"; 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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:51:32 -0000

However, this still has the problem that if I don't pace and I have a window of 100 packets, I can burst 100 packets into the network.  This seems suboptimal from both the sender and the network's perspective.

Now that I think about it, I think the concept of limiting the size of a burst is the key here, not so much idleness, and I think defining idle more accurately is both not necessary and likely to be difficult.  Ideally you would send no more than max(10, BW * kTimerGranularity) packets into the network at once.

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