Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)

Nick Banks <> Sat, 30 March 2019 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04073120319 for <>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 15:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.383
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.383 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_24=1.618, 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 sEqjw9o7RcdF for <>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 15:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E41F120310 for <>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 15:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 15:47:35 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1553986055; bh=SZ8q83AO9NKqzEWUEzJZodZZ0Nk8HbPd6k6XtjiBnyw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UV3yu/wXBfIajyO64a+1IWqaobHG9LDgM08UoOdq99k0Q/AcjYMSkaNP6z9MeoTOR /U2IBegJbyKTa3KysctH6NGnI1R1lQxbSZzgQfegjSvF5LMd0Ww3BiRaTekKpmZH2P /6Gya6u14VjLWRH1WoOZwJ8q7y19UPcTtc85lko8=
From: Nick Banks <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2568/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9ff207820de_5ab33f91118d45b41064268"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 22:47:38 -0000

Why only accept the RTT measurement if ack_delay is less than (or equal I assume) max_ack_delay? So the peer held on to the packet a little longer than normal? What's the big deal? If they report to you exactly how long they held on to it, you should still get an accurate RTT measurement, right?

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