Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify text on pacing (#3667)

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 17:55:22 -0700

N was introduced in #3630 to describe how a sender might pace at a rate that allows it to send a congestion window&#39;s worth of data in a period that is shorter than an RTT. This PR clarifies text that goes into unnecessary detail, trying to describe assumptions (the network is spreading the packets out, for example, resulting in an ack clock).

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3667

-- Commit Summary --

  * Trim text on pacing
  * tweak language instead of removing

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md (10)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3667.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3667.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/3667

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 17:57:12 -0700

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> @@ -908,12 +908,10 @@ Or, expressed as an inter-packet interval:
 interval = smoothed_rtt * packet_size / congestion_window / N
 ~~~
 
-Using a value for `N` that is small, but at least 1 (for example, 1.25) ensures
-that variations in round-trip time don't result in under-utilization of the
-congestion window.  Values of 'N' larger than 1 ultimately result in sending
-packets as acknowledgments are received rather than when timers fire, provided
-the congestion window is fully utilized and acknowledgments arrive at regular
-intervals.
+Using a value for N that is low, but at least 1 (for example, 1.25) ensures that
+variations in round-trip time don't result in under-utilization of the
+congestion window. Note that a higher N results in the inter-packet interval
+becoming smaller, and a large enough N defeats purpose of pacing.

```suggestion
becoming smaller, and a large enough N defeats the purpose of pacing.
```

-- 
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/3667#pullrequestreview-414030990

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 17:57:17 -0700

Seems fine to me.

-- 
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/3667#issuecomment-630512298

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 19:28:25 -0700

@janaiyengar pushed 1 commit.

42029ce2684faf7a4a2e0d088ec0d77eb776914c  Update draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3667/files/2b872b0250bfcdd66d56d59113bc9e367d715865..42029ce2684faf7a4a2e0d088ec0d77eb776914c

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 13:56:29 -0700

I tend to think this is a useful way to think of pacing for window based congestion controllers, which is why I suggested it be added.  We can talk later.

-- 
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/3667#issuecomment-631077682