Re: Consensus Calls for Late Stage Documents

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2020 22:16 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 AFCB01209C9 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:16:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 jB4v33ITkLyE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:16:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (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 4CC3D120992 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:16:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id 15so13990170lfr.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:16:19 -0800 (PST)
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=ZUIN//FB/8J2qKsa2t1oaRTpemlNtaUmx1awpPjtLso=; b=k5TXpfxIaEBrPMUN+Ibx+vfwXeum7Slviv2gdVcv3gT8L9BTE0UNS/Xi2AxLBeP6Mo z81ObmEgw3RJQLqVXFEh/CNQQtuKBmvmJ2/0Z6yxBBFAIh+UvAb28KLmdBNEoTZz09a5 2lYfaM1gyR6WW7sBQRg3DEVToMcOCrDur14/eiOMeR3Emanw2cYsnGQDCY7vMR/X3wAC OJ+IL2fhmgM0PcLgnFKBOOkZ+7uFW6/nEAzs8rA2ga2wwETHPq28nMdZnAq34pte18D3 NbVl9eq9NSnMAT8gMC9e/DkjKKkCOhFcWi7/DxnG9KVypP6Uv68T9SCi7uq8d2usNvLW Ka+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=ZUIN//FB/8J2qKsa2t1oaRTpemlNtaUmx1awpPjtLso=; b=P4anMpNcXbyJBD+Eb3jbCTKZxycWth9+WumnulZ4qZejdTyIHo3a3FK/fBeXO2vrD/ Wqcr41dma/kl01zHhHBGyefkF2tDOiDy0/ztMk6s8Fr7lUIvaZHFRXAAEjXcYMmL3n6/ Y+xQzwGYRDGv7gmbS4fVXCYxHDvr+lq698XTMGBjUQJhih2MDvBTw4wT7X6gvG9TnTNy Khnx21Wv/1RgnCObRwUdsbVWExaO4Pw1p2sAW8InFg/cC32kT841+qaCRJsToh8+CByK uX1GHocXf3QYA7l+SBTkU0VsmyHRkDXL6PJLgIV11eADM1n+Xdx2XB8e3qlL76usPCBN Z9Jg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWhWDDtUGrRsbJ6g3+aP+JO3RUZY5I7qj7wyAHtFq1mpCNfIMq+ ERYK1EL+fbaAJMDMBT3Zdg/6bg0hJrBrHlrlf+g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyZ+WvoUK8dZdMBFvKK4n+I94qfMMfFUR8TUxygQj18iL6heaLbKUxI5/QF4D5qFT923Sa6n6Fp9xxYfBrNsfk=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:dc1e:: with SMTP id t30mr616483lfg.34.1579126577439; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:16:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <43D8DACA-C1C4-449A-A4BC-4F0E6F8F1CAB@mnot.net> <247B1759-7D5C-436D-B6C5-BC2AF2479366@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <247B1759-7D5C-436D-B6C5-BC2AF2479366@apple.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:16:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CACpbDccumYO5jmhFbq-MiFtw-zmHn2TpLP+hdeUSskdn5UmDcw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus Calls for Late Stage Documents
To: Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Eric Kinnear <ekinnear@apple.com>, Rui Cunha Paulo <rpaulo@apple.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b42789059c350e54"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/fPdShswT5rKO_FFtrMDdYrHZmuo>
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: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:16:22 -0000

Vidhi,

The current draft already recommends use of a pacer, and your PR 3351
suggests a mechanism that an endpoint can use for doing it. That still
doesn't obviate the earlier need to specify a requirement for endpoints
that do not implement any pacing.

Basically, codifying an example pacer does not change the premise of PR
3232 - that implementations might choose to not pace.

Said differently, even if we were to specify one way of pacing, as PR 3351
does, PR 3232 still applies. I don't think we need to hold off on PR 3232
based on PR 3351.

- jana

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:47 PM Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel=
40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> * #3094: congestion window increase on every ACKed packet could result in
> bursty sends
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3232>
>
>
> We would like to hold off on this change as we are working on specifying
> Pacing mechanism which would allow the implementations to decouple
> congestion window increase from sending rate and thus eliminate the need
> for 2MSS limit during slow start.
> Below is the PR:
> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3351
>
> I will create a issue to start the discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Vidhi
>
> On Jan 5, 2020, at 7:56 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> Happy New Year, Working Group.
>
> The following issues have proposals for resolution, and discussion so far
> seems to support consensus to accept them. If you object, please do so on
> the issue or in response to this message (changing the Subject
> appropriately!). Absent any pushback, we'll direct the editors to
> incorporate them late next week.
>
> See <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/projects/5> for the current
> state of issues in the Late Stage process, itself defined at <
> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md>.
>
> * #3274: Encrypting Retry token
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3274>
>
> * #3247: I am concerned the congestion control text is too permissive.
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3248>
>
> * #3245: Make RFC 6928 normative
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3287>
>
> * #3244: Can we make a normative ref to  RFC8085?
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3248>
>
> * #3243: Add caution when using IW10 and fragmentation
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3280>
>
> * #3152: Client storage of tokens should be independent of other stored
> state
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3150>
>
> * #3142: It is unspecified how a server sends Handshake packets during /
> after migration
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3145>
>
> * #3094: congestion window increase on every ACKed packet could result in
> bursty sends
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3232>
>
> * #3014: Handling of corrupt Retry packets
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3274>
>
> * #2863: unrecoverable loss pattern leads to deadlock
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3145>
>
> * #2789: Use a higher seed RTT for new paths
>   The proposal is to close with no action.
>
> * #2744: Idle Timer Can Fire Even with Outstanding Data to Send
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3266>
>
> * #2602: Idle timeout needs more description and a recommendation
>   The proposal is <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3099>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>