Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packet implicity ACK it (#698)

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Wed, 06 September 2017 19:13 UTC

Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 19:12:58 +0000
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab629b72cf46b36140b4d28516b1cebdfe0290e77e92cf0000000115c80ab992a169ce0ea843fe@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698/327584965@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packet implicity ACK it (#698)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_59b048b9ce1d3_76a13fac2f7f5c2c67714"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/0xRbB9F4iW1EgcgavP0QAfyyuCU>

> to say that one MUST not specify timestamps that don't have corresponding ack blocks

I actually would go the other way on this. If we are expected to send timestamps in most cases anyway, there is zero information added to also have a sack block for that data. If the ACK frame is lost, it's perfectly fine to later represent the receipt of that packet as an ack block.

But IMO receivers MUST interpret timestamps as an acknowledgement. Senders:
- MUST represent receipt of a packet as either a timestamp OR an ack block in a single ACK frame.
- SHOULD represent it as a timestamp when first attempting to ack the packet;


-- 
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/698#issuecomment-327584965

[quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packe… Subodh Iyengar
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… Subodh Iyengar
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… MikkelFJ
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… janaiyengar
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ekr
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… Martin Thomson