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

eliminate the difference between when having no RTT sample and having one #3525

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Apr 18, 2020

Conversation

kazuho
Copy link
Member

@kazuho kazuho commented Mar 15, 2020

As pointed out in #3524, I think that we should assume same amount of RTT variance when there is no RTT sample and when there is one sample, because variance is unknown in both cases.

This PR makes that change while keeping the initial PTO being the same (i.e. 1 second), and slightly simplifies the timeout logic.

Fixes #3524.

Copy link
Contributor

@ianswett ianswett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this is a nice simplification, and one I've considered before, but I think we need to be careful to ensure an actual RTT measurement always erases any historical or default values.

draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kazuho
Copy link
Member Author

kazuho commented Mar 16, 2020

@ianswett Thank you for the review. Would you ming checking if the updated text has what you have suggested?

draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ianswett ianswett added the editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. label Mar 16, 2020
Co-Authored-By: ianswett <ianswett@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@janaiyengar janaiyengar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you, @kazuho, this is a good fix. This also fixes the case where the 2 x initialRtt is smaller than granularity.

draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@janaiyengar janaiyengar removed the editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. label Mar 17, 2020
@ianswett ianswett added the design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. label Mar 17, 2020
kazuho and others added 2 commits March 18, 2020 08:27
Co-Authored-By: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@janaiyengar janaiyengar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a few editorial suggestions.

draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-Authored-By: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@ianswett ianswett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think Jana's suggestions LGTM.

draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
kazuho and others added 3 commits March 31, 2020 11:37
Co-Authored-By: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
@kazuho
Copy link
Member Author

kazuho commented Mar 31, 2020

@janaiyengar @ianswett Thank you for the suggestions. I've applied them.

Copy link
Contributor

@janaiyengar janaiyengar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM - thanks, @kazuho! Can you resolve the merge conflict?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-recovery design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Inconsistency between early timeout calculations
3 participants