IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Sat, 05 September 2020 00:42 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 1EA103A0EC2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 ct8QqYFQLibw for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED2E83A0D82 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01ECE560E00 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1599266528; bh=j2B2UN/ogKoXUCFvNUmuOTcFKGOonytlViw+VLaSVcg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=f6OJK7shXBVPRTkkP4cxAGgt8nV0H+NCfWdyh9jyf3GnDiBn1+FdSgyGEFVLigNPA JazNQ84TESe9QZ8bpofrwBjJBIVfuFPjB1Iiv/Bbl+ZZbfxXvhqSgvP8l4yt4mGXYc saNvDuy9FQQwptKTfu4gJjJ1niQlJpJUWIR4FiPY=
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:42:07 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6LEW6KYI77FTZXPH55L2757EVBNHHCREMQGU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4010/c687494844@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4010@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4010@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Persistent congestion pseudocode to match text (#4010)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f52dedfe4e74_16f519f0144171"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/qs5nfCyFvDTSlpZXtcyhzHKMwz4>
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: Sat, 05 Sep 2020 00:42:10 -0000

I think there's value in having the part that shows how to disregard packets prior to the first RTT sample. The code clarifies the text here. The PR does leave the tricky part -- finding the largest loss period -- to implementers since that is very implementation specific.

@ianswett : other than that bit, are there other parts that you think are becoming implementation specific?

Note that in terms of actual code, this PR isn't much larger than the current code. There are large comments, which are useful I think.

I'm not wedded to this PR and I'm ok with @ianswett's suggestion; I don't think this PR is all that complex though.

-- 
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/4010#issuecomment-687494844

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email