Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentCongestionThreshold be 1 or 2? (#2556)
ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 26 March 2019 15:44 UTC
Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 678C8120461 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 s2EfPRNc2oAS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from o5.sgmail.github.com (o5.sgmail.github.com [192.254.113.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14A6C12044B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=VyCSbde50mviabKHpkYWf6Iz1QU=; b=KUSKrmI+RBdPEP2o inI/VtGYVixRuo/7zq6n/XWPVJuOnqMzoTg2pZqGtAEURRpcb4whKGAbhoDOz21P CT5KYBD25K7zfL9JdPjEA6K2e4XMuLi0lMPjYXIXxFbzaWHjGGx+weSi/b1hJn7f 1Rp0ijt+JsbsllQANcye6n4kyOE=
Received: by filter1764p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1764p1mdw1-18318-5C9A48C6-26 2019-03-26 15:44:06.321279103 +0000 UTC m=+405433.308096912
Received: from github-lowworker-20a34ff.cp1-iad.github.net (unknown [192.30.252.43]) by ismtpd0016p1iad2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id ukk8VD9cTnuvjNPyoUdojg for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:44:06.298 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from github.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by github-lowworker-20a34ff.cp1-iad.github.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A07340064 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:44:06 +0000
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abe48914325782db9961c712695a7c8c835fc4668192cf0000000118b20ac692a169ce195b9436@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2556/476710975@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2556@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2556@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentCongestionThreshold be 1 or 2? (#2556)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c9a48c6406e6_2d6e3f832aad45c0748b9"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak1vznnYU9yKBh81JbFReTfhvrhvwBXir4fQVQ fCSFf34XF1wiIwWW9v/IBcdT/Bb1L2sxpC2RD/bl05bCnV2waKYsdNNeo08h9P3k2VlJ9GdU13Hw7q /Y8UiY6btyFkek5yj4xQrfXnfgpHxoy80/j4LIulPkt4GVb0C6vXn91Otc48zFQmXdY1VVeMK8MlOn o=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/z61JbWft2d-urnWG0U8AE9TSZs4>
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, 26 Mar 2019 15:44:25 -0000
Last time I talked to Yuchung, I remember him saying they chose 1 somewhat arbitrarily. I'm going to argue for 2 (3 * PTO) as a good number because it provides enough time for the PTO timer to go off twice now that the PTO has exponential backoff. This is in some ways more similar to 1 TLP and then 1RTO in terms of network load. Additionally, I believe making it only 1 would allow a single tail packet to be lost and persistent congestion to be declared if there was some RTT variation? That certainly seems undesirable. Maybe the rationale for why this value was chosen should be clarified further? -- 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/issues/2556#issuecomment-476710975
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentCongestion… Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should kPersistentConges… ianswett