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
Small clarification and one nit (recovery) #3392
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -467,14 +467,14 @@ Handshake packet number spaces, the max_ack_delay is 0, as specified in | |
The PTO value MUST be set to at least kGranularity, to avoid the timer expiring | ||
immediately. | ||
|
||
A sender computes its PTO timer every time an ack-eliciting packet is sent. | ||
A sender resets its PTO timer every time an ack-eliciting packet is sent. | ||
When ack-eliciting packets are in-flight in multiple packet number spaces, | ||
the timer MUST be set for the packet number space with the earliest timeout, | ||
except for ApplicationData, which MUST be ignored until the handshake | ||
completes; see Section 4.1.1 of {{QUIC-TLS}}. Not arming the PTO for | ||
ApplicationData prioritizes completing the handshake and prevents the server | ||
from sending a 1-RTT packet on a PTO before before it has the keys to process | ||
a 1-RTT packet. | ||
from sending a 1-RTT packet on a PTO before it has the keys to process a 1-RTT | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks, fixed in #3486 that landed today. |
||
packet. | ||
|
||
When a PTO timer expires, the PTO period MUST be set to twice its current | ||
value. This exponential reduction in the sender's rate is important because | ||
|
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think computes is more accurate in this case, because the timer may not change if another packet number space will fire earlier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On a quick read it's actually not clear from the beginning that there is only one timer and not a separate timer for each packet. So maybe "recomputes" catches that? Or we could add a separate (half-)sentence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
PTO timer is singular and associated with a sender, so it seems clear there's only one based on my reading. But feel free to suggest something else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I pulled this into #3552 with some tweaks, PTAL.