Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix congestion control permissiveness (#3248)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Thu, 28 November 2019 11:23 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 9A68B12080C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:23:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.595 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 1QPLCwgiajBd for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-15.smtp.github.com (out-15.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1536112010C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE07261747 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:22:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1574940179; bh=kC1mogr8nWeazTJOhkjoTKLijf88J7NC/uCEKjo4l2Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=QKED+Uw4LJDNDFn+uAF7A+Z8hOIwq/4KFjgfJ/S+FPGgJ64TVVLKDB2UbTQPpL2po cGEbyrEjDRAgJxv+HecXrzO6Dd559osMyJjm8iP049HjFQqpMji6m/poYcnzmLH45H TiykfLlJLYGF0M54CO3bT2rxCU/b7u2tkFTStiuY=
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:22:59 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4ZFH27MLHLPW6O3R535TQJHEVBNHHB6OVESM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3248/c559454751@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3248@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3248@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Fix congestion control permissiveness (#3248)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ddfae135b14d_35a3fc4144cd96c67111f"; 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-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/wLEPcjeEdVrPc8cjojgy9G-NRuA>
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:23:01 -0000

Rabbit-hole warning. There isn't a real set of requirements anywhere for congestion control articulated any better than what's in 8085. Gorry and I looked through existing documents, realized that we're lacking here, leading to Gorry's [draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-cc-04](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-cc-04).

I don't think it makes sense to move text out of 8085 here. The entire point of a normative reference is so we don't do that. Is there any specific text that you have in mind, @ianswett?

The MUST here is so that an implementer is required to consider the UDP guidelines in 8085, but each one of those SHOULDs is evaluated individually. Simply saying SHOULD conform to 8085 is quite different than 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/3248#issuecomment-559454751