Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Recovery-31: Limits on kPersistentCongestionThreshold values? #4195

Closed
gloinul opened this issue Oct 12, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #4215
Closed

Recovery-31: Limits on kPersistentCongestionThreshold values? #4195

gloinul opened this issue Oct 12, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #4215
Assignees
Labels
-recovery editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call.

Comments

@gloinul
Copy link
Contributor

gloinul commented Oct 12, 2020

Section 7.6.1:

The RECOMMENDED value for kPersistentCongestionThreshold is 3, which is approximately equivalent to two TLPs before an RTO in TCP.

Any values that needs to be explicitly forbidden? For example does it need a sentence saying that it MUST be larger than X? I would think that 1 would be to low and allow slow start after just one RTT+variations? I understand that likely would give the application bad behavior but likely also have negative impact on other applications if the QUIC stack ends up doing slow start crashing into the wall and then slow starting again?

@ianswett
Copy link
Contributor

I lean towards not being overly proscriptive here. We could elaborate on the pros and cons of smaller and larger values if you think that is necessary? Exponential backoff is clearly critical, but it's less clear to me that the CWND really needs to be collapsed in these situations.

@larseggert larseggert added the ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call. label Oct 13, 2020
@larseggert larseggert added this to Triage in Late Stage Processing via automation Oct 13, 2020
@gloinul
Copy link
Contributor Author

gloinul commented Oct 13, 2020

I am really just trying to asses if there are significant risks with any specific ranges of values. For example causing very bursty behavior that could be considered harmful or becoming extremely aggressive after a persistent congestion event, in those cases some text may be necessary.

@larseggert
Copy link
Member

Based on #4215, labeling this as "editorial"

@larseggert larseggert added the editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. label Oct 15, 2020
@project-bot project-bot bot moved this from Triage to Editorial Issues in Late Stage Processing Oct 15, 2020
Late Stage Processing automation moved this from Editorial Issues to Issue Handled Oct 15, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-recovery editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call.
Projects
Late Stage Processing
  
Issue Handled
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants