Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] loss recovery of crypto packets is less aggressive, not more aggressive (#2435)

ianswett <> Thu, 07 February 2019 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC1812958B for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:21:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.819
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, 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 uMxit7Vo40o7 for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3D9C1292F1 for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 10:21:21 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1549563681; bh=qAZ48uQOWucVZNpLS384gvV2aqa+JNhNEIpUV6eV7fI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0zgTz85VyqFO11Zr/hJ8e/e30p9voRIqnntDaW/Vi038CbYXtE+igZNs39dODO568 EWemR+HmwVE2wi7x0GCXRm8anh6fZO6MV3kZnzAbOlL/1lv//OKwf5A2Mp5838eb56 Ujnn4G0P5AonCcZUPOeZeWQjmI+Z7+6sSnbdZcbE=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2435/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] loss recovery of crypto packets is less aggressive, not more aggressive (#2435)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c5c7721d4646_1a283fca4dcd45b8202065"; 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: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 18:21:24 -0000

Good point, I think this is really a bug and the time threshold loss detection should trump retransmitting handshake data.

This may be a good argument for adding a second timer just for time threshold loss detection.  I can make it work without that, but would that make it clearer?

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