Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why min CWND of 2 instead of 1 (#3586)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

@martinthomson requested changes on this pull request.



> @@ -245,6 +245,13 @@ QUIC specifies a time-based definition to ensure one or more packets are sent
 prior to a dramatic decrease in congestion window; see
 {{persistent-congestion}}.
 
+### Increase the min congestion window to 2 packets

```suggestion
### The Minimum Congestion Window is 2 Packets
```

Title Case is Used in This Document

> @@ -245,6 +245,13 @@ QUIC specifies a time-based definition to ensure one or more packets are sent
 prior to a dramatic decrease in congestion window; see
 {{persistent-congestion}}.
 
+### Increase the min congestion window to 2 packets
+
+QUIC recommends a minimum congestion window of 2 packets instead of TCP's 1.

```suggestion
QUIC recommends that the minimum congestion window be 2 packets instead 
of the 1 packet minimum in TCP.
```

> @@ -245,6 +245,13 @@ QUIC specifies a time-based definition to ensure one or more packets are sent
 prior to a dramatic decrease in congestion window; see
 {{persistent-congestion}}.
 
+### Increase the min congestion window to 2 packets
+
+QUIC recommends a minimum congestion window of 2 packets instead of TCP's 1.
+2 packets avoid waiting for a delayed acknowledgement and allow the PTO to
+send 2 packets instead of 1, which can be particularly important during the

What Marten said.  This justification makes no sense.  Probing with two packets is different.  

As far as I can tell, this is an arbitrary choice, driven primarily by a desire to avoid the performance floor being too low.

-- 
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/3586#pullrequestreview-396108610