IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: nits in draft-ietf-quic-recovery-05

Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> Mon, 11 September 2017 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jri@google.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96523132F67 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 RVuWwS32EODn for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (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 169341320CF for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id q76so2219375pfq.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z8hvQm6gWGsfYmaqPhYNkpcvrDKxBBR1TdLnw0ya41Q=; b=MK4pDJL+aV/lXuazop7wWHmid8nWl9CWSMo3X2j8nKZgkdEzXhZ3ErcB0m9FqK8qpF psExFKgYGcd0LnX0fvPhNbi+oEmUNMmfnrlThvTYKkPv98yqaNOalR7xFuOesNh/7GXQ SXDn0m43QJr6TbniKS4pe381EpN/rVKCzO4P2wR2Zs0sLpQmtawlQWnobDAuLRvI1w9E zQKu+fhPfzny+lDQf0u1yuVh5SynqLYHaFPZkrnzF5v/5BBNfk9ueCZNGC5gz+DMycRI TgXQvgTUf8Z3CKrNSPX1F6/1OgGawcoza4FNfLqFttMJU8oeLzoAXXdLMcTzT8PtNSeo qt4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Z8hvQm6gWGsfYmaqPhYNkpcvrDKxBBR1TdLnw0ya41Q=; b=k36m6WGKXIz/l57U2QOwK/tlAX1yVeev/vfaD0cS+wkcDHeUGxw4F0GHJPYl3v8CU3 ryD9cZI22yXLvhmigpvKdAyatnMZEpVR1rRG/oL4lPKxUr0UlFq9YnMkDwDYuJLSiJvc 6YrovnW6bUqfquCKSBgG1pDTKLgGm8TSHd/2KEmS4hnB+y+J4ePMAiv4EWC89N0laBFY oNSccDkkDDuBKb9gOxY+fSu109/ju+dYIDz/H1daZExsesvO7t+QMFryCtpUn/wGy58d GsBs/ZessyeNdwJu7PGOwr68DOqrxz3Fsh+5NQJKi56nFeM9AXsffVxcET46IEE2IF8J Bm4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhR8oPHtuIxMXn3FcwmC/Hfq/BLoBVlX7QmLo3C1jB/wdra/2LH x3kSUjAqRr4udaFM+lXSVwKSd5YmObQ3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6Q1C7jiey+/r5P5A2A5cqPs+icI9++tK/MHNzd0Ar/N767egH8HRcHj3v69yuSClRuZD6Tfni6+iOQJxTq17E=
X-Received: by 10.84.211.39 with SMTP id b36mr2558327pli.330.1505166091383; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.145.144 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACweHNCQ6mcRGdp=yWWZKHfgN1+JOFKf+dW_5SvPnySgkmEGcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD8025EC@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAGD1bZYEaFLZ-tmOzQgDEzaQ69qVE7odQuO0SUHp7amm+pBx_A@mail.gmail.com> <CACweHNCQ6mcRGdp=yWWZKHfgN1+JOFKf+dW_5SvPnySgkmEGcA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:41:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGD1bZbYG1KiaaHsCwvfHMmtS4P8e-f3kvYr0d=mWQ0fq-+PmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: nits in draft-ietf-quic-recovery-05
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c093b2634dd5e0558f0cace"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/Q1SVYYaN2W8pX7NEGYtIZSEAH1k>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:41:33 -0000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
wrote:

>
>
> On 12 Sep. 2017 04:45, "Jana Iyengar" <jri@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Roni,
>
> Thanks for your careful read of the draft!
>
>> In section 3.1 the bullet before the last one “a QUIC sender marks a
>> packet as lost when a packet larger than it is acknowledged” should be
>> “with higher packet number” instead of “larger”?
>>
> We've consistently used "larger" packet number, so I'm inclined to stick
> with that, even if "higher" is slightly more correct?
>
>
> A "larger packet", and a "packet with a higher/larger/greater/whatever id"
> are two different things. I think that's the contention.
>

Oh, right, I missed that. Thanks for clarifying, I'll fix it (change to
"marks a packet as lost when a packet with a larger packet number is
acknowledged.")

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email