Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Mon, 24 February 2020 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E577B3A0CA5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:55:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U5iH4lYMU822 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:55:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A1263A0CA4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:55:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E0DC60353 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:55:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1582556116; bh=x5kzKot6GYW+3T4vRtl4LiicOvGd1fAcc6oFU4YNBuw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=UbGrIcBC0K5jHUK0kPI1SS6/2CoU/zqcqISH/yXS+CVJ5sK51SKb74Ha66v+xctlB c5K/BodDNaV0+ANeWMO3pXSb9kRi6l238ulQKqzTHtqbmQyRb2ilqBv0XFoQL/FntP f7vbwoeEyFfUa4K//9Ci2o7EKhHE+w27nCxuQCpY=
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:55:16 -0800
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK53KORXZLLXCSIVJ5V4MELFJEVBNHHCDF6P4Q@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/590360731@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e53e3d4959c6_79493fc96d0cd96c96957"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/0qJ7Y4h70LMptRn60ErQgRoVqQU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:55:19 -0000

> I do not think that there is any burden on even the simplest implementation. If the simplest implementation detects a gap, it can send a packet with an ACK. If that gap was detected due to a receipt of an non-ack-eliciting packet, a PING frame could be included with the resulting ACK (to satisfy "An endpoint MUST NOT send a non-ack-eliciting packet in response to a non-ack-eliciting packet, even if there are packet gaps which precede the received packet."

Your solution very much goes against what I intended for that text, so I filed #3480 to clarify what I meant and add some more text about what can be expected of ACKs.  I think it makes sense to continue discussion on that issue, if there is further discussion, because this issue is about whether ACK-only packets can be declared lost, not about acknowledgement reliability.

In particular, acknowledgements are not guaranteed to be received.  Almost all packets get acknowledged, but a sender can never rely on all packets being acknowledged, even of ACK-eliciting packets.

-- 
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/issues/3451#issuecomment-590360731