Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Only send one immediate ACK (#3361)

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 20 January 2020 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43FB1200B3 for <>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:39:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 ujf7dhM_Dziz for <>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC69120025 for <>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:39:01 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579505941; bh=oxRiBcfW7Bc7W2K/8lLRs+SyN4CnC10uPnu6DIirHqA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=drNaO6uoLs0pZ1N1oJyYPbqJyCH/LclZ5ZpO6wvLiRUtd23Cuz+8jehl3LO95MeQn J5NexXu7etaCKoFxRef7I/nM3Vav1cMqTlOeoNi8qJbh6oGqN4WvTmn01INCkzQrTm i5MBkw8FYa9A2hKLm2YSuS/MF9ocaQsZG8ViXPik=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3361/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Only send one immediate ACK (#3361)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2559157baf4_57a83faf9dacd96021362"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 07:39:09 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.

> @@ -3136,12 +3136,10 @@ This recommendation is in keeping with standard practice for TCP {{?RFC5681}}.
 In order to assist loss detection at the sender, an endpoint SHOULD send an ACK
 frame immediately on receiving an ack-eliciting packet that is out of order. The

Agreed. I think that's the definition we are looking for to close #3347, though I am now beginning to wonder if we need "ack-eliciting" within the condition.

Shouldn't receiving a packet with a PN gap, regardless of the packet being ACK-eliciting or not, trigger an immediate ACK?

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