Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] DetectLostPackets not called in anti-deadlock case (#3298)

Jana Iyengar <> Thu, 12 December 2019 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855981200F6 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:32:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 9gH1g_zlc0oA for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FA3B1200C5 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:32:03 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1576117923; bh=FsdkR/Xn3/T0Xcd2neexEXXRJuUZ3ekZOqmgFQKkXdc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IZ8ZWkA6GNe8STt77tc2SVSL7ZOoE7OjVUMQgY2/KZnl7JzkSTdIq7bIXPac6wuFI OX3jsusm/9gjt2ArpguO6d5KquFRSjSdmbv7XDjrtgiB701ss2+oXGEv+itVpySJM3 u4ygzsX7gxvBsflLqSBsHn93VC/Ti8RxwfJiXLRU=
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3298/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] DetectLostPackets not called in anti-deadlock case (#3298)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df1a6a365f7e_74983f840facd960826de"; 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: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 02:32:05 -0000

It is by design that we don't mark things as lost until an ACK is received. That is, lack of feedback is not treated as loss to avoid undoing things later when the RTT may actually have changed. Receipt of an ACK is an important signal that the RTT is fine, and that it is actually likely that packets have been lost.

As Ryan asks, what happens that is suboptimal?

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