Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Word-smithed version of Ted's resolution to #3842 from the mailing list (#3945)

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 22:42:34 -0700

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

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945

-- Commit Summary --

  * Word-smithed version of Ted&#39;s resolution to #3842 from the mailing list

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (15)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945.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/3945

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:04:05 -0700

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> -determination will be imperfect.  If the determination is incorrect, the
-congestion controller and the RTT estimator are expected to adapt to the new
-path.  Generally, implementations are advised to be cautious when using previous
-values on a new path.

I think we should retain some of this to deal with the bit where people decide to ignore the "SHOULD".

-- 
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/3945#pullrequestreview-453853528

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:32:59 -0700

@larseggert pushed 1 commit.

d0e35c6cb827039e59415ab94b38cb1f58e95aa8  Try and address @martinthomson's review

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945/files/44ef798c8b710792eabc660bc59d463037ec7ab5..d0e35c6cb827039e59415ab94b38cb1f58e95aa8

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:33:31 -0700

@larseggert commented on this pull request.

Thanks. Tried to address this in the current revision to the text.

-- 
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/3945#discussion_r459239602

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 05:02:24 -0700

@martinthomson approved this pull request.

Discussion on-list continues, but if this is the direction we choose...

-- 
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/3945#pullrequestreview-454062241

---

From: ekr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 09:10:36 -0700

This LGTM and would address my concern.

-- 
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/3945#issuecomment-663095419

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:22:53 -0700

@ianswett commented on this pull request.

>  immediately reset the congestion controller and round-trip time estimator for
 the new path to initial values (see Appendices A.3 and B.3 in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}})
-unless it has knowledge that a previous send rate or round-trip time estimate is
-valid for the new path.  For instance, an endpoint might infer that a change in
-only the client's port number is indicative of a NAT rebinding, meaning that the
-new path is likely to have similar bandwidth and round-trip time. However, this
-determination will be imperfect.  If the determination is incorrect, the
-congestion controller and the RTT estimator are expected to adapt to the new
-path.  Generally, implementations are advised to be cautious when using previous
-values on a new path.
+unless the change is only to the other endpoint's port number.  Because

```suggestion
unless the only change is the other endpoint's port number.  Because
```

-- 
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/3945#pullrequestreview-454425323

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:52:29 -0700

@janaiyengar approved this pull request.

One nit, but I'm happy with this resolution.

> +round-trip estimate in those cases instead of reverting to initial values, as a
+conservative implementation would. In cases where congestion control state

```suggestion
round-trip estimate in those cases instead of reverting to initial values.
In cases where congestion control state
```

-- 
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/3945#pullrequestreview-454483522

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:04:26 -0700

9396411f73ea7e8ceedb37ab4c4a92d503ab164e  Update draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945/files/d0e35c6cb827039e59415ab94b38cb1f58e95aa8..9396411f73ea7e8ceedb37ab4c4a92d503ab164e

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:04:36 -0700

b4cce75456f669de76183ce12ce515b4c9b210dc  Update draft-ietf-quic-transport.md

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3945/files/9396411f73ea7e8ceedb37ab4c4a92d503ab164e..b4cce75456f669de76183ce12ce515b4c9b210dc