Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define idle period for congestion control (#2555)

Praveen Balasubramanian <> Wed, 22 May 2019 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BED412012C for <>; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.393
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 LqG2EZGPC3oT for <>; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 468E31200F9 for <>; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 16:26:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1558567562; bh=7NqIVjOvGvAHCBylfHw3ARbwml1Ydtv4MrBEg1b9X3c=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=a1WEvJx3Fgu+9vpZj818zlfVsAclMunKYVv6q0hhtu7oU4YMYzKQfLu3pBg8QimBu xcVnI3gojrLbi4Qw9jEGFv6lVHhfIwlH0CmvGJ+r97JD6CwPb/X1eEpP89+OE4pq1e go8dN7GdOFbwDhibpO4zOIvn9z0Cai/sbPwwFFr0=
From: Praveen Balasubramanian <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2555/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define idle period for congestion control (#2555)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ce5da8ab7a17_3ae83fa7964cd95c78519a"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: pravb
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: Wed, 22 May 2019 23:26:06 -0000

@mirjak pacing may be implemented and controlled outside of the transport. I have two new concerns about text around bursting packets on network:
1. Many CDNs and edge deployments will tweak IW to be a higher value. In Windows TCP we allow config of up to 64 MSS. So if the network admin knows what they are doing and can swallow bursts then we shouldn't discourage the practice. 
2. UDP segmentation offload is reality now and for high throughput flows using hardware offload to reduce CPU will mean larger bursts trading off against pacing. We shouldn't preclude this either. 

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