Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] congestion window increase on every ACKed packet could result in bursty sends (#3094)

ianswett <> Tue, 19 November 2019 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3113120236 for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:27:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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] 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 xGZ01GDq9kNT for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:27:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AD4512004E for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:27:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A876609FB for <>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:27:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574130455; bh=1PauhsS6r2FKtN4kkxK7C5i11Jo+05N/JWC7HPR9abo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=zTAG8RXwKrFyfxUHBezpA9KuZQCuaXv6Hv3jKa9D5btdt/3RqpDBBBweQHHreTkKx OguNpd/B4fDuBNjmIvl2hyD894hZrbVjkgLcciqunq5s0JS3cSssxKsPgO9jhJuEdG xi60r4RNv9Hs2md49i+3VFXgKS2Tc6dhYwv5Iw0s=
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:27:35 -0800
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3094/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] congestion window increase on every ACKed packet could result in bursty sends (#3094)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dd3531727729_37fb3f846d6cd9601192e2"; 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
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:27:38 -0000

For the WG:  The proposed PR attempts to include a mechanism to limit CWND increase during slow start when not pacing.  I'll note that by itself, it does not guarantee we follow the existing MUST: 
 "Implementations MUST either use pacing or limit such
   bursts to the initial congestion window, which is recommended to be
   the minimum of 10 * max_datagram_size and max(2* max_datagram_size,
   14720)), where max_datagram_size is the current maximum size of a
   datagram for the connection, not including UDP or IP overhead."

I don't think we should add this to the pseudocode, because we say SHOULD pace packets and the pseudocode currently only covers SHOULDs, not MAYs.  Adding all MAYs to the pseudocode is too complex.

I don't have a concern about adding a reference to the existing RFC as a mechanism that MAY help limit bursts during slow start.

I'd like a decision from the WG on whether to include this change and if so, some criteria on what should be included going forward.

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