Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MAY send 1 packet entering recovery (#3443)

[martinduke <[e-mail]>]

Well the pedantic answer is that TCP would only detect a loss if there was something in the bytestream. the QUIC equivalents would then be any packet that contained STREAM, CRYPTO, MAX_STREAM_DATA, etc, plus any packet that flipped the key update bit. But not ACK, MAX_DATA, and other things that are in the TCP header. That is obviously a dumb way to approach things.

I don't actually have a strong opinion on this one way of the other, but if I read the draft correctly, the loss of an ACK-only packet will affect cwnd in QUIC but not TCP (granted, a cwnd-constrained endpoint sending pure ACKs is a corner case). So I guess I'd err on the side of permitting the packet in response to loss of an ACK, as we're already quite a bit less aggressive than TCP in that case.

Anyway, do we want any normative language against, say, using this permission to send high-priority new data instead of the lost data?

-- 
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/3443#issuecomment-584898157