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

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:35:40 -0700

I'll do a new one to explain choice of N.

-- 
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-641616807

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:35:42 -0700

Closed #3667.

-- 
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#event-3427091110

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 16:35:47 -0700

@ianswett 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 the purpose of pacing.

This last point is true only in the extreme.

I'm not a fan of this PR, but you probably already know that.

-- 
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-427615543