Be clearer about persistent congestion #4429
Conversation
draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md
Outdated
| @@ -994,11 +994,11 @@ congestion without depending on PTO expiration. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Establishing Persistent Congestion | |||
|
|
|||
| A sender establishes persistent congestion after the receipt of an | |||
| acknowledgement if at least two ack-eliciting packets are declared lost, and: | |||
| A sender MUST establish persistent congestion after the receipt of an | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
MUST isn't necessary here.
| A sender MUST establish persistent congestion after the receipt of an | |
| A sender establishes persistent congestion after the receipt of an |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@martinthomson : Can you clarify why you think so? If you are thinking about enforceability, this document has several other unenforceable MUSTs, especially in the congestion controller.
ianswett
added
-recovery
editorial
|
|
||
| * all packets, across all packet number spaces, sent between the send times of | ||
| two ack-eliciting packets are declared lost; | ||
| these two packets are declared lost; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know we keep disagreeing about this, but I think paralellism is important. Above, they're called "two ack-eliciting packets" and below we drop 'ack-eliciting', which I find confusing.
If you don't want to restate ack-eliciting, then I'd suggest "if two packets that are ack-eliciting are declared lost,"...
draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md
Outdated
| A sender establishes persistent congestion after the receipt of an | ||
| acknowledgement if at least two ack-eliciting packets are declared lost, and: | ||
| A sender MUST establish persistent congestion after the receipt of an | ||
| acknowledgement if two ack-eliciting packets are declared lost, and: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| acknowledgement if two ack-eliciting packets are declared lost, and: | |
| acknowledgement if two packets which are ack-eliciting are declared lost, and: |
|
|
||
| * all packets, across all packet number spaces, sent between the send times of | ||
| two ack-eliciting packets are declared lost; | ||
| these two packets are declared lost; | ||
|
|
||
| * the duration between the send times of these two packets exceeds the | ||
| persistent congestion duration ({{pc-duration}}); and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
down in the third bullet, maybe s/both packets/these two packets/
@msvoelker rightly noted lack of clarity (here), which this PR attempts to fix.
There's a new MUST here, but I think it was again implicit. EDIT: Removed this MUST since @martinthomson notes correctly that this is a definition, not an action.