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

hardie <notifications@github.com> Tue, 03 December 2019 18:38 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 302AD1200D8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:38:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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: 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 vlQqTH_yIqdY for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1F9512000F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 10:38:12 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1575398292; bh=kzB9LFE4h2EvD/gbXa3xL/7uutMZgojOcFlK3Iloa3w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=v0zNVANgG8LamCTgQKPxgqMAgp52KT0BXUhyV5vJfjfgreVKVklFN5jJlzd9xS+QJ DK62R8KNssAo3F8V/erjgFEeOJGis1BqvQzR1dypHbxjew2WhQr2WUeEZaOtrlhl+R qQuosCfiojwq9q7Vfxg4p6dzFYPO0HdHiFk5Am00=
From: hardie <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7743PFZQSABPKALEV36PPBJEVBNHHB6OVESM@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/c561299858@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_5de6ab944dca_67ca3fb7e4ccd964114564"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: hardie
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/xXziAKiqCF3G_00tAU1vfKCIY38>
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 18:38:14 -0000

Jana, can I read your reply to Ian as "I agree, but there are no MUSTs we want to include, since the SHOULDs is BCP145 are the best we can do"?  If so, maybe the right thing to do is close this issue with just the more precise pointer.  I do believe, however, it would then be better to recast the sentence to make the pronounce/antecedent clearer.  For example: 

If an endpoint uses a different controller than that specified in this document, the chosen controller MUST conform to the congestion control guidelines specified in Section 3.1 of
{{!RFC8085}}.

There are other ways to phrase it, of course.  That would alleviate my concern that a naive reader might believe that they could roll their own behavior; that's particularly worrying when the very first item in 3.1 allows this:  

  If an application or protocol chooses not to use a congestion-
   controlled transport protocol, it SHOULD control the rate at which it
   sends UDP datagrams to a destination host, in order to fulfill the
   requirements of [RFC2914].

It's all too easy to read that as allowing simple packet-pacing to suffice for QUIC here.  If the reader knows that they have to pick a known congestion controller, we'll be better off. 

-- 
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-561299858