Re: too much call to SetLossDetectionTimer()?

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

Good point, this is typically unnecessary.  However, I think it also may be
clearer to call it here than not?  Alternatively, we could add a comment
and an assert.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:10 AM newbie quic <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have a question about the pseudo-code found in
> draft-ietf-quic-recovery-30.txt.
>
> Especially the part where at least one ack-eliciting packet is sent from
> OnLossDetectionTimeout(). In every cases, we finally set the loss
> detection/PTO timer calling SetLossDetectionTimer():
>
>      if (bytes_in_flight > 0):
>          // PTO. Send new data if available, else retransmit old data.
>          // If neither is available, send a single PING frame.
>          _, pn_space = GetPtoTimeAndSpace()
>         SendOneOrTwoAckElicitingPackets(pn_space)
>      else:
>          assert(!PeerCompletedAddressValidation())
>          // Client sends an anti-deadlock packet: Initial is padded
>          // to earn more anti-amplification credit,
>          // a Handshake packet proves address ownership.
>          if (has Handshake keys):
>               SendOneAckElicitingHandshakePacket()
>          else:
>               SendOneAckElicitingPaddedInitialPacket()
>
>      pto_count++
>      SetLossDetectionTimer()
>
> Then as a sent ack-eliciting packet must be considered as in flight,
> OnSentPacket() will also make a call to SetLossDetectionTimer().
>
>
> Regards.
>