IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> Tue, 12 September 2017 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.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 57C0913208E for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 T3MOeShIxDaL for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F18021241FC for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DOK08526; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:06:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.210) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 06:06:22 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.138]) by DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.210]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:06:16 +0800
From: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
CC: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: nits in draft-ietf-quic-recovery-05
Thread-Topic: nits in draft-ietf-quic-recovery-05
Thread-Index: AdMqxLEU0GzdUweDRv23LwH2ULxahQAJlC8AAAXKOIAAAGBpAAAgPgfg
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:06:15 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD802A85@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD8025EC@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAGD1bZYEaFLZ-tmOzQgDEzaQ69qVE7odQuO0SUHp7amm+pBx_A@mail.gmail.com> <CACweHNCQ6mcRGdp=yWWZKHfgN1+JOFKf+dW_5SvPnySgkmEGcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZbYG1KiaaHsCwvfHMmtS4P8e-f3kvYr0d=mWQ0fq-+PmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGD1bZbYG1KiaaHsCwvfHMmtS4P8e-f3kvYr0d=mWQ0fq-+PmA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.153]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD802A85DGGEMM506MBXchina_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.59B76B52.0010, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.138, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 2d15fb9a0a1098f0bf4305fa5b8d7d75
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/fuy5zelinHZFSGI88IugvALprWU>
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:06:30 -0000

HI Jana,
Thanks, this was my comment about just saying “larger”
Roni

From: Jana Iyengar [mailto:jri@google.com]
Sent: יום ג 12 ספטמבר 2017 00:42
To: Matthew Kerwin
Cc: Roni Even; IETF QUIC WG
Subject: Re: nits in draft-ietf-quic-recovery-05

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


On 12 Sep. 2017 04:45, "Jana Iyengar" <jri@google.com<mailto: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