Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't retransmit lost packets that are acked later (#3957)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Fri, 24 July 2020 22:10 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 4C4CA3A08B9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.716
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.716 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 Djm0mt56qghS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEFAF3A08AB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.31]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D88B600E76 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595628643; bh=oyBGejUKmS+x0qcERiMzYMPiGKmBd0fxA+FF66bMRN4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=0rdQhWXHem3fIoWQzu/67TDnOxYpd0lfXQ6nt2cOWPZlUJF77CL0ldzPCnRKm5C73 +kR84I+iA08ax5IZrVzoqhEgNIeAKBlnLYpP/Mr3syCkXkbKQ1d6LyfAK+ro2j7jjT 2fBvJwhUYn6kFluXxhIkw7RZpPma0cSBNsgncMi0=
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:10:43 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZWVLXM56YRCZ6R25N5E46WHEVBNHHCPIKQDU@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3957/review/455206964@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3957@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3957@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't retransmit lost packets that are acked later (#3957)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f1b5c63ebd2_36193ff66e0cd95c6323f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/zjC19Uzv0ke6ayu4jell4-jez-k>
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 22:10:46 -0000

@janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

I've rewritten the long sentence based on feedback

> @@ -3804,6 +3804,14 @@ number length, connection ID length, and path MTU.  A receiver MUST accept
 packets containing an outdated frame, such as a MAX_DATA frame carrying a
 smaller maximum data than one found in an older packet.
 
+When a sender declares a packet as lost and either retransmits the contained
+frames or marks them for retransmission, the sender SHOULD avoid subsequent
+retransmission of this information if it later receives an acknowledgement for
+that packet. Doing so requires senders to retain information about packets after
+they are declared lost. A sender can discard this information after a period of
+time elapses, such as three times the PTO (Section 6.2 of {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}), or

The PTO is the period of time that you expect the ack back by, not RTT. 

It's true that 3 PTO is a conservative value, but, it's only on lost packets. When that's the uncommon case, it won't consume a lot of memory. When it's the common case, you're not sending a lot of packets anymore because the sender is in congestion, so it shouldn't also cause memory exhaustion.

Either way, this is a suggestion, not a recommendation.

-- 
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/3957#pullrequestreview-455206964