Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify when timer should be set (#3390)

From: mirjak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:30:15 -0800

However, I&#39;m not sure if normative language is correctly here, because use of a time is an implementation detail; important is that the packet is declared lost after the threshold time. I guess a timer is the only sensible implementation but we could just say:

&quot;... a timer is set for the remaining time.&quot; 
or 
&quot;... a timer should be set for the remaining time.&quot;
or
&quot;... timer should be used to declare the packet lost if not acknowledged within the remaining time.&quot;
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3390

-- Commit Summary --

  * Clarify when timer should be set

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md (5)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3390.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3390.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/3390