Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of non-existent packet is illegal (#2302)

[Marten Seemann <[e-mail]>]

marten-seemann commented on this pull request.



>  acknowledgment of its ACK frames, with the knowledge this could cause the sender
 to unnecessarily retransmit some data.  Standard QUIC {{QUIC-RECOVERY}}
 algorithms declare packets lost after sufficiently newer packets are
 acknowledged.  Therefore, the receiver SHOULD repeatedly acknowledge newly
 received packets in preference to packets received in the past.
 
+An endpoint SHOULD treat receipt of an acknowledgment for a packet it did not
+send as a connection error of type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION, if it is able to detect

Actually, I think of the reason phrase as giving more details about the error, e.g. when exceeding the stream limit, I'd send the error code STREAM_LIMIT_ERROR, and then the reason phrase might say "Peer tried to open stream 124, but stream limit was 116.".

If we say that all information should go into the reason phrase, then why do we have FLOW_CONTROL_ERROR, STREAM_LIMIT_ERROR, FINAL_OFFSET_ERROR, FRAME_ENCODING_ERROR and TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR? They're certainly just protocol violations of one sort or another.

-- 
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/2302#discussion_r245854197