Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_ack_delay should be in us, not ms (#3363)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 21 January 2020 01:11 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 EA250120801 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:11:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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: 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 HV-BvUy82Mod for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DCBE1200D8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C238C01E6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:11:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1579569060; bh=BzfAXOgYoLM+j7lY/uZggswWZ/JzgDn6CIGu7OZ30ig=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=P275MFXHq0AFhtKHyn+DlBPufif402d3TGf5hUAxWwKwMDgDxrfs3tCQcBsvi34kq BsOKHr22tv0ug0rCtU47cmofGipQKTkazIcjebabTDyc9d1ByHr38MUNkh6yFkHVht nIJttHlR1bv6nV7FV2MiJqLMc+YaFBy6E6BrHCqo=
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:11:00 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZXNB4EMAAO4HNT2RN4GOBCJEVBNHHCBYTETM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3363/576476620@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3363@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3363@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] max_ack_delay should be in us, not ms (#3363)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e264fa475deb_5f2b3f7fb12cd95c434252"; 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/uTeGJu4plC0Ws_IpRSUCMnVnYb4>
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: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:11:04 -0000

We did discuss this a while ago when we decided to use ms here, and we thought it was quite reasonable. (I cannot recall the arguments, I'll have to dig up the issue.) There's also a limit of 2^14 on this, which will have to change if you wanted to go down to microseconds.

Thinking about this, I agree with @martinthomson: I don't think we should be opening up a design issue for consistency if it doesn't solve any other issues.

(FWIW, @ianswett, let's work on getting the extension accepted first before making changes in core spec to accommodate it.)

-- 
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/issues/3363#issuecomment-576476620