Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] ignore the ack delay in Initial and Handshake packets (#2676)

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 22:43:28 -0700

This should have been part of #2646.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2676

-- Commit Summary --

  * ignore the ack delay in Initial and Handshake packets

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md (19)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2676.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2676.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/2676

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 05:58:58 +0000 (UTC)

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

Seems reasonable to me.

Throughout here, should we be using "peer" or "receiver"?

(The suggestions I make here are not issues with this change, but I'm sure that @ianswett or @janaiyengar will find them a home.)

> @@ -387,18 +387,21 @@ smoothed_rtt is an exponentially-weighted moving average of an endpoint's RTT
 samples, and rttvar is the endpoint's estimated variance in the RTT samples.
 
 smoothed_rtt uses path latency after adjusting RTT samples for peer-reported

```suggestion
The calculation of smoothed_rtt uses path latency after adjusting RTT samples for```

> @@ -387,18 +387,21 @@ smoothed_rtt is an exponentially-weighted moving average of an endpoint's RTT
 samples, and rttvar is the endpoint's estimated variance in the RTT samples.
 
 smoothed_rtt uses path latency after adjusting RTT samples for peer-reported
-host delays ({{host-delay}}).  A peer limits any delay in sending an
-acknowledgement for an ack-eliciting packet to no greater than the advertised
-max_ack_delay transport parameter.  Consequently, when a peer reports an Ack
-Delay that is greater than its max_ack_delay, the delay is attributed to reasons
-out of the peer's control, such as scheduler latency at the peer or loss of
-previous ACK frames.  Any delays beyond the peer's max_ack_delay are therefore
-considered effectively part of path delay and incorporated into the smoothed_rtt
-estimate.
+host delays ({{host-delay}}).  For packets sent in the ApplicationData packet
+number space, a peer limits any delay in sending an acknowledgement for an
+ack-eliciting packet to no greater than the advertised max_ack_delay transport

```suggestion
ack-eliciting packet to no greater than the value it advertises in the max_ack_delay transport
```

-- 
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/2676#pullrequestreview-234876361

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 20:38:29 -0700

@marten-seemann pushed 1 commit.

7d177839c875acd63288c82a3f930d7c9f9f43d4  Martin's suggestions

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2676/files/10c3c60cf95381e90abb6f08819c88e4fc8959aa..7d177839c875acd63288c82a3f930d7c9f9f43d4

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 20:42:46 -0700

@martinthomson I applied your suggestions. I think this PR should be marked as editorial.

-- 
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/2676#issuecomment-490731833

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 21:20:19 -0700

The new "MUST" threw me, but it's not really new, is 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/2676#issuecomment-490737478

---

From: Marten Seemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 21:26:27 -0700

That one was introduced in #2646 already.

-- 
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/2676#issuecomment-490738375

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 05:45:43 -0700

ianswett approved this pull request.

Thanks for fixing this.

-- 
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/2676#pullrequestreview-235566347

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 15:46:07 -0700

Merged #2676 into master.

-- 
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/2676#event-2341648425