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

Update PTO pseudocode to better match text #3461

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Mar 16, 2020
Merged

Conversation

ianswett
Copy link
Contributor

If there are bytes_in_flight, then always do a standard PTO.
If not, it must be a client which is unsure if the peer has completed address validation.

Fixes #3070

If there are bytes_in_flight, then always do a standard PTO.
If not, it must be a client which is unsure if the peer has completed address validation.

Fixes #3070
@ianswett ianswett added editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. -recovery labels Feb 15, 2020
@ianswett ianswett changed the title Update pseudocode to better match text Update recovery pseudocode to better match text Feb 15, 2020
@ianswett ianswett changed the title Update recovery pseudocode to better match text Update PTO pseudocode to better match text Feb 15, 2020
Copy link
Member

@martinthomson martinthomson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, I see how this all fits together now. I think that it's entirely too clever.

I suspect that some commentary is going to be needed to explain that the PTO timer isn't armed when

a: the server hits address validation limits (the new text), and
b: the endpoint has nothing to send (except when the client isn't sure that the server has completed validation)

draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ianswett
Copy link
Contributor Author

@martinthomson I added two comments to address the two points of potential confusion you raised in your last comment, PTAL.

draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ianswett and others added 2 commits March 15, 2020 19:37
Co-Authored-By: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
@ianswett ianswett merged commit 061a913 into master Mar 16, 2020
@ianswett ianswett deleted the ianswett-pto-pseudocode branch March 16, 2020 00:26
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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Mysterious 1 vs 2 packet distinction in recovery pseudocode
2 participants