Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] allow sending of TLP and RTO probe packets when congestion limited (#1180)

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 05:43:25 +0000 (UTC)

This is an editorial change. We already have text allowing to send TLP and RTO packets when congestion limited in the respective TLP and RTO sections.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180

-- Commit Summary --

  * allow sending of TLP and RTO probe packets when congestion limited

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md (6)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:34:29 +0000 (UTC)

ianswett approved this pull request.

Thanks for the fix.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180#pullrequestreview-103095304

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:34:36 +0000 (UTC)

Merged #1180.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180#event-1516532415

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:37:59 -0700

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> @@ -885,7 +885,9 @@ specified in bytes due to finer control and the ease of appropriate byte
 counting {{?RFC3465}}.
 
 QUIC hosts MUST NOT send packets if they would increase bytes_in_flight
-(defined in {{vars-of-interest}}) beyond the available congestion window.
+(defined in {{vars-of-interest}}) beyond the available congestion window, unless
+the packet is a probe packet sent after the TLP or RTO alarm fires, as described
+in {{tlp}} and {{rto}}.

Now it looks like this is a definitive list, but we have an exemption for packets that only carry ACK frames as well.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180#pullrequestreview-103096849

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:39:41 -0700

ianswett commented on this pull request.

 counting {{?RFC3465}}.

ACK only packets don't increase bytes_in_flight, but that does remind me that handshake packets also may increase bytes_in_flight above the congestion window.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180#discussion_r173842285

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:16:03 +0000 (UTC)

marten-seemann commented on this pull request.

 counting {{?RFC3465}}.

Handshake packets are not congestion limited? Where does it say so?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180#discussion_r173855669

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:21:14 -0700

counting {{?RFC3465}}.

Sorry, I meant that similarly to TLP or RTO packets, handshake packets count towards bytes in flight, but can be sent even if bytes in flight exceeds congestion window.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180#discussion_r173857559

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:35:33 -0700

counting {{?RFC3465}}.

Can you point me to the section where this is specified? I can't find it.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180#discussion_r173862572

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:04:15 -0700

counting {{?RFC3465}}.

I had this in mind: "When the alarm fires, the sender MUST retransmit all unacknowledged handshake data. On each consecutive firing of the handshake alarm, the sender SHOULD double the handshake timeout and set an alarm for this period."

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1180#discussion_r173929156