Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retaining the largest received packet number (#3541)

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 01 April 2020 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1523A135F for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 HAwpoabsTVTU for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 407D83A135D for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8122C1380 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585783597; bh=ymE4lDRbZsbnkKoJCsFhWPSN19VWE1MNDSp0n+cto7I=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=yF3q5SkXoYtFflP/bDAvA2xYVptJA+RcTb1uKUh3xg4HwMRYs/qapvwI8q6XSMLDj yxaJCwUh5SPmlkc/gJtMsh5ZxI83g1CJWguejWIuMp9upcZ+m6ut5WXBbnp+kKbWiq sRxUe5a1I8PFboT6Mu1kgjFXuCbjKLrzhwVJ5xUw=
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 16:26:37 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3541/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Retaining the largest received packet number (#3541)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e85232ddbd9c_27143fe306ccd96c63419"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 23:26:41 -0000

That matches my model for this.  It is also likely the case that the next packet you receive is largest+1, so there is no real advantage to forgetting the largest acknowledged.  Not sending it is slightly different though.  I can understand how an implementation might choose to send only ranges that have recently changed.  My contention is that this is not a good choice and we should recommend against that.

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