Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Recommend algorithm for packet scheduler, rather than implementation (#3122)

Vidhi Goel <> Sun, 12 April 2020 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE3C3A1C1C for <>; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.863
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 0es6v1p9-S-Y for <>; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4813A1C1A for <>; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758F46E01E4 for <>; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1586658625; bh=uIiRMX6AQBxDXFHsopF1XOvRAwCuYsvUSo+D+be3Jjk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Va0ynwX71JZiSDFtncq2Ka+YpjRS3OJe9QHgoBS/aXhCyYp1cY5Am7tnmJ7I4muUo hUa6zIoxZGnNLquHbOWopb09BYGp1CkiizBkrkfX1KusCW9eQMpePWeNEjcDNxy+TZ 9O0IuVLprZ2QJHGQqGJclA4pgkg9tQ78UKIW8zWA=
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:30:25 -0700
From: Vidhi Goel <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3122/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Recommend algorithm for packet scheduler, rather than implementation (#3122)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e927d4163f53_3ba53fd0e10cd964541218"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: goelvidhi
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: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 02:30:29 -0000

We had tried to provide a clearer definition of pacing here:

This includes specification for how long should an implementation wait between two consecutive bursts:
`To effectively avoid creating these large packet bursts, a sender SHOULD also
 enforce a minimum time between sending the above mentioned bursts. To
 achieve high throughput while at the same time minimizing the bursts it is
 considered safe to wait for (RTT * maximum_burst_size / (cwnd * 2)) seconds
 between each burst (multiplying the congestion window by two allows the
 the rate to increase during slow-start).`

If the text in #3351 looks close to what we want, I can recreate the PR and we can go from there.

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