Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define idle timeout more precisely (#1614)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:50:36 -0700

This uses the definition that @ianswett provided, which is as good as any we have.  The primary measure here is receipt of new packets, though initiating new activity refreshes the timer as well (to avoid pathological timeout cases that are entirely under local control).

The point about asymmetry means that getting this time absolutely right isn't necessary.  The timeout is entirely under an endpoints own control.  We communicate this so that peers can be careful about sending near this boundary.

Closes #1429, #1049.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1614

-- Commit Summary --

  * Define idle timeout more precisely

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (18)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1614.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1614.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/1614