Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO MUST send new data or retransmit data if possible (#3057)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Mon, 23 September 2019 16:25 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 8D40C1200D5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 XAh8PjjNOafM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 203D8120112 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F67A0834 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:25:16 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK65N6X7DCHCMWTX4JF3SYZHZEVBNHHB3IPO4M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3057/review/291901280@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3057@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3057@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PTO MUST send new data or retransmit data if possible (#3057)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d88f1ec5a81a_40333fd88b0cd96c1551a9"; 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/uxYnKCFwB8Aiy0fqBydTcdxbeho>
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: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:25:19 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -526,12 +526,11 @@ as a probe, unless there is no data available to send.  An endpoint MAY send up
 to two full-sized datagrams containing ack-eliciting packets, to avoid an
 expensive consecutive PTO expiration due to a single lost datagram.
 
-It is possible that the sender has no new or previously-sent data to send.  As
-an example, consider the following sequence of events: new application data is
-sent in a STREAM frame, deemed lost, then retransmitted in a new packet, and
-then the original transmission is acknowledged.  In the absence of any new
-application data, a PTO timer expiration now would find the sender with no new
-or previously-sent data to send.
+When the PTO timer expires, and there is new or previously sent data, it MUST
+be sent.  It is possible the sender has no new or previously-sent data to send.
+As an example, consider the following sequence of events: new application data
+is sent in a STREAM frame, deemed lost, then retransmitted in a new packet,
+and then the original transmission is acknowledged.

It probably should be recommended behavior, and we should probably have some text on it.  Filed #3058 to discuss if and what to do to improve that.

-- 
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/3057#discussion_r327209845