Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss considerations for max_ack_delay (#2186)

Jana Iyengar <> Mon, 15 April 2019 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A41412046D for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.001 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 8uXhF9cbRJBU for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D601E120444 for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=RVpDQLYVhtm7uAGhrqCdKy6c9jE=; b=ZCSDqtTH3gYtLOsy qkFDJRaGjm23lNKb9RfGfDP3hGzhnkMyyL1h/nQQy0YxRTjjscIqcCQXo788gONf Y8j+3n+Cp3EEgogIYi6F5avpNFXzPpLJTA7/Y0sC0qr0M3ozFC2ij051aAyjOV8q whSbFY2mRNlXEuj4Tb1mCIEDfi8=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0514p1iad2-15169-5CB4E6DF-15 2019-04-15 20:17:35.539047787 +0000 UTC m=+592445.559765290
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id BxkvV7m4TQqapWv4FN1OTA for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 20:17:35.470 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F144803E5 for <>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 20:17:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2186/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Discuss considerations for max_ack_delay (#2186)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cb4e6df6d591_51923ffb9a0d45b4272545"; 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-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3TCkyjQXPlk5YjZEG9c+T6PZPGCplR17XE2B hEzpQazjxx2o33DSv3dyH3u0SEdKoB0V7kcnQmjaIahjyMJ+ZH2P7fPPn6pr3bo3XYfHyKxU9+fogC 9nGhozvBHEn4phm/c/gjypDYmt2Ipg/UvLMrYHTzFfrgiUaOykQgAeuHRoVf4s7vXt3T6qibFC1Dfb A=
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 20:17:46 -0000

@pravb: I've proposed separating platform delays from stack-controllable delays in #2596. My thinking has moved since this issue was first filed, and I now think that max-ack-delay should only include stack-controllable delays. Any additional delays will go into the smoothed_rtt anyways, so any timers should account for those delays via the increase in the smoothed_rtt. At any rate, I propose that we move discussion of that specific question to #2596.

I'm closing this issue, let's open new issues for any other more specific concerns.

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