Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify why PTOs in idle timeout period (#4091)

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:05:55 -0700

I think this was the intent of the sentence, but I kept not being able to parse it so.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4091

-- Commit Summary --

  * Clarify why PTOs in idle timeout period

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-transport.md (4)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4091.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4091.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4091

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:08:13 -0700

Merged #4091 into master.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4091#event-3754086826

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 06:53:54 -0700

@ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2707,8 +2707,8 @@ ensures that connections are not closed after new activity is initiated.
 
 To avoid excessively small idle timeout periods, endpoints MUST increase the
 idle timeout period to be at least three times the current Probe Timeout (PTO).
-This allows for multiple PTOs to expire prior to idle timeout, ensuring the idle
-timeout does not expire as a result of a single packet loss.
+This allows for multiple PTOs to expire, and therefore multiple probes to be
+sent in the event of loss, prior to idle timeout.

Probes aren't sent due to a loss, so I think this is also confusing.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4091#pullrequestreview-486826529