Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify out of order acking (#2954)

Jana Iyengar <> Thu, 08 August 2019 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF7F120116 for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qn9iGp0mYMLQ for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB602120033 for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:08:10 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1565226490; bh=MS9J4lFAojf/gSl/C8b8+VqV/BDwtW8nVOh91GvpCtY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MW3RqmckLjrGDTXF+EuYcSbX0Dwu+8KnQsV3X35cSdDDRUYwoHaa5wOoEBgu2Az2v VKB885aF36rr0MBi0LmMFmX30J+KuSJkr30f/ox/cZSt6Vs2x8c5XYjxe33cnu0I1I kfmJXdTjFMZPNIUzykmxQcxO28p1T0B4QOad2c+E=
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2954/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify out of order acking (#2954)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d4b75fac23d4_5f6e3fa97e8cd9641715e3"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 01:08:13 -0000

@nibanks: The current spec would not cause an ack to be triggered if non-ack-eliciting packets are received out of order. I think that's important. If the packet that was lost was another ack-only packet, this would cause unnecessary acks, and doing this at both ends could cause a minor ack storm.

@marten-seemann: out-of-order is defined in the draft above. I think it's less than ideal, but it's not ambiguous.

@rpaulo: I've rephrased the ECN section just a bit to be clearer. Does that help?

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: