Re: too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()?
Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 14 September 2020 23:11 UTC
Return-Path: <jri.ietf@gmail.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 01D883A00D2 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=gmail.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 8wBq6ODB1ftA for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 95CD33A0044 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id u4so1094584ljd.10 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z5NVYieFqV97TwIDy4Wdia2/94D00GbWy6qWHwykeks=; b=aCF8ZR/bwaXtAW7iN+XFHIsECzwjZw9xw0y1X902ypk0AJvZ/ZLJQaPgFCvdKneTR8 dtBfVTfs6HorYPSqyLP28Azl8kYV2mFDn3/OxklF+Q+c8KLlcg7Bz2VMxHY3e6ciTifp IHA7ZVxfWwgYspIVp6GsXN3qsFHPyJB+o4ZvMf3w3FR3JqhtaPOKJOplX+1ewh80KTa0 BQh/R3+o68Dn/EDHGFjWitJ7K29keyN8Ov0GtiIEyy8WkHKgE41ifkybaTtT3pzajiCq FHYGvH9+EtBqLZZZR0ecwCtvdSob0Pn2sLBmV1F6QWpj2U+2w0lo32Pt6yq/ohKiN9e4 yv/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Z5NVYieFqV97TwIDy4Wdia2/94D00GbWy6qWHwykeks=; b=W8c0LfyIbISVgtvwb8CWm8pIFl+gC/IeNJKkUeKNx95GA3Wge9ZbOz5WSJCQJNaYzv 80TbB7tkp9VjGPnPzzRUa9t0rKBlvz1S55Spm7bYPtOIkpjezZbtMmZ2Il0tv9HOdFoP up5EqacMeCOBZCvwdRLt8GhgywL2tZmauCB6QXK1ggsWlbHhNTRo3tYxusRrRLC5K+48 0gZcSlWeP3rDOU4GCBvFMmjhPiOEK1Gd6Es5tGFF/YFRNC1PCFlp38C56XiA9lCUjSqs 0Imp+rnVZnmndobLA8LrX6tj0r0Fc254BgFi9lU3H0ht+VRwj/PXd2B5y7y/uiTsTuMv iREw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LXDwadeXMpN9PiZB1QsxesGwBtP3xPfMQV04agS4bxnoUrknL RHwSDgcN8uBs9xNuv4SbseYkh3eG7kRUZk+pl1c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyU2Ya2xLrHkNUfV0pw184LV2VPGZP2YGa5NO3eTIybGuca0YMnsAXPAmTbkpcMwmoMnC9/U1W7d3zqrM41SEU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9c9a:: with SMTP id x26mr6128556lji.56.1600125104625; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADf7dJgAi4dcRDUZgEm5S8tXHBJ-95LxZx-=wrUbrHP1VdhWbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gPBXtDhSyw3N80YJTAEwRs4f-8wfnEFfZRjVWcUjXuvjQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACpbDce+0QLWFTM3_V2f1ERPfzuk1Ysk9a=UMUQ+A-ppAKjY4A@mail.gmail.com> <CADf7dJgN+pAZC=2pBm=A7LExMYqgtMEd2zrjtdg3mCD4c1zDYA@mail.gmail.com> <A65FDCC7-4708-4838-85CC-375E7CF13F5D@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <A65FDCC7-4708-4838-85CC-375E7CF13F5D@eggert.org>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:11:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDccmwSi2j69KbEwjqbuMgzxHeTP1k7472bBA6nhLYbNLMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()?
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: newbie quic <quicnewbie@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000075208b05af4e28d0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/Yag_5hrNlan5IGvsd8K7hEHdRzQ>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 14 Sep 2020 23:11:48 -0000
Good point -- though the pseudo-code should work fine, even if redundant. Yes, the pto_count is incremented before SetLossDetectionTimer() is called, and that will push the timer to run for the longer, correct timeout. My point was not to say that implementers cannot use the code as is -- they can, since the pseudo code is expected to be correct -- just that they might include some redundancies that were introduced here for clarity. On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:27 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote: > Hi "newbie quic", > > anonymous IETF participation isn't really possible. Please see > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md and > referenced documents. > > Thanks, > Lars >
- too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()? newbie quic
- Re: too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()? Ian Swett
- Re: too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()? Jana Iyengar
- Re: too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()? newbie quic
- Re: too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()? Lars Eggert
- Re: too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()? Jana Iyengar