IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss Application-Limited Sending (#1637)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 07 August 2018 20:05 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 ECAFF1310C2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 13:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 v4QLqYZ6DHz5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C61CF1310BD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 13:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 13:05:07 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1533672307; bh=qXhH8QaxNwnpa6vaMnQLFzzwy7BNpuM2+UwPqo6rdng=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=oJr6DWJhUExY9g9VJ81p1CnTqO2DK4MpNHEBjyq5T8UnOBv8MdvApabT+9bv3Ntu0 TZtJCSNUqoF/nT24DB5h7EOugSDw23MXUlRQfgNw3bpYVkQ9D0Fa8DSBXN1bGjtcUM xWYRI0vzZ6LciIJbA7TOuvz2HvsjaXa8aL6C2h/Q=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abf1bb1df2dafd9a8633df97b9fbeadb55aaf229fc92cf000000011781bd7392a169ce14c4e0aa@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1637/review/144162454@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1637@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1637@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss Application-Limited Sending (#1637)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b69fb7328194_35933ffd9fabe6184917c5"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/ucIQ-PnXdPOq7OKdi9Pr-aqSbNA>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 07 Aug 2018 20:05:10 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -989,6 +988,13 @@ The recovery period limits congestion window reduction to once per round trip.
 During recovery, the congestion window remains unchanged irrespective of new
 losses or increases in the ECN-CE counter.
 
+## Application Limited Sending
+
+If the sender is sufficiently application limited that the congestion window is
+not fully utilized, the congestion window should not be increased in slow start
+or congestion avoidance.  Senders should consider themselves application limited
+if bytes in flight when receiving an ACK frame are more than a max datgram size
+less than the congestion window.

In that case, I think I should just remove that sentence?

-- 
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/1637#discussion_r208367314

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email