You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Does this mean that the TLP doesn't count towards bytes_in_flight? Though it's probably not a problem in this case given that nothing has been sent for a while, another exemption is annoying.
Since that interpretation is directly in conflict with the next sentence, I think that this sentence is just unclear about intent (TLP isn't special when it comes to its sending and handling, the only special handling is in deciding to send a TLP packet - and maybe what you put in that packet).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Does this mean that the TLP doesn't count towards bytes_in_flight?
This is answered by section 3.1.1:
A TLP packet MUST NOT be blocked by the sender’s congestion controller. The sender MUST however count these bytes as additional bytes in flight, since a TLP adds network load without establishing packet loss.
OTOH, I think as an implementer I'd like to have some leeway on this. MUST might be too strong.
@martinthomson would it be clearer if I changed it to: "If recovery sends a tail loss probe, no change is made to the congestion window, but the packet does increase bytes_in_flight." ?
I can't see a reason not to count it towards bytes in flight, so I chose MUST. Can you think of reasons to change this to a SHOULD?
@ianswett : never mind about the "MUST being too strong". I was thinking that for a short moment after I send out a TLP packet, if an ACK comes back and acking all packets before TLP, but not TLP, I'm only allowed to send congestion_window - bytes_in_flight number of bytes, while bytes_in_flight still holds the TLP bytes. But now i realize that's the way it was intended. (There might be a case that after onRetransmissionTimeoutVerified, congestion_window drops to a small value, but not everything in bytes_in_flight will be cleared up, but that's a different issue (#935 ).)
-- Section 4.4
Does this mean that the TLP doesn't count towards bytes_in_flight? Though it's probably not a problem in this case given that nothing has been sent for a while, another exemption is annoying.
Since that interpretation is directly in conflict with the next sentence, I think that this sentence is just unclear about intent (TLP isn't special when it comes to its sending and handling, the only special handling is in deciding to send a TLP packet - and maybe what you put in that packet).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: