Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SHOULD implement adaptive packet threshold loss detection (#3571)

Igor Lubashev <> Thu, 30 April 2020 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B873A0766 for <>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.373
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.373 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.82, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ysHNJrsOpizG for <>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D263A0765 for <>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C8D282C66 for <>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1588254661; bh=UydUnKwkzaqxfctaGZWl8eqRHaCEki28C/WfNylLMIM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=OQ2bubSLnh1pxJyX/TPT+e4U2HNT9jl5U49IrFHW2CUW6BermZ+Ne9J4mwZNy7R9e QAw1WjuUh3fAVhmT4QlsViDLU24CxemNV47xCztdPuGuhEt9HGNUZdNVGaW8H5VpEu IOZEm4AbSr8rbBaXtE3JWz4tCTwRDzs3trX65mIU=
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:51:01 -0700
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3571/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] SHOULD implement adaptive packet threshold loss detection (#3571)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eaad7c551611_7c303fa9518cd964722df"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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, 30 Apr 2020 13:51:07 -0000

@junhochoi The public data on this can be found in [slides presented for IETF 105](  Take a look at red "below the line" red dots on the graphs.  At the time we thought the red dots represented loss in our observer infrastructure, but additional analysis after the IETF meeting confirmed that the signal was mostly due to very high reordering (more than 31 subsequent packets arrive before an older packet has arrived).

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