Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] pto_count should be reset when dropping a packet number space (#3272)

Kazuho Oku <> Thu, 28 November 2019 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6A112080B for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:10:25 -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 thbwl5Kc7XbN for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:10:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37A701207FF for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:10:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1C86A083D for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:10:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574939423; bh=xAxT1BjPUWR12uunAM2rFnupLxvnMLSkhOe+2vrRLwM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AIzd1dEJ1UFhjMikh1Ia1j0PaG1pnLcQbMXJpW/WZ+DHzGMY1XEkF5NfzGae6FcIk skrrRLImplLYrbMbVuFvWMHxLzWK1UKkSoAKcChoH/TClGKxSyBAOzd1GC1j2owudf 8aO3e1O/lAGDvdHMO6GInj3Gge8XnK2feiQomHW8=
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:10:23 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3272/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] pto_count should be reset when dropping a packet number space (#3272)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ddfab1f7c878_1b8b3ff8a3acd95c13831aa"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:10:26 -0000

> I believe the simplest way to ensure QUIC isn't overly aggressive during the handshake and to encourage packet coalescing is to specify pto_count on a connection scope, similar to the rtt variables.

I think we agree that PTO during handshake should be _as aggressive as_ after the handshake. However, I am starting to wonder if the current spec. actually works that way.

Consider the case when the server responds to ClientHello. It would be sending Initial, Handshake, and 1-RTT packet at the same time. Then, when those QUIC packets gets lost, the loss timer would be invoked three times, resulting in pto_count set to 3. Is that the intended behavior? I think in such case, pto_count should become one, after the PTO timers of each epoch is triggered.

Therefore, to me, the correct logic seems to be:
* have pto_count for each epoch
* every time the per-epoch PTO timer is triggered, increment the per-epoch pto_count by 1
* when an ACK is being received on *any* epoch, reset pto_count of all the epochs

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