Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unified ACK frame (#1706)

Magnus Westerlund <> Fri, 14 September 2018 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47733130E26 for <>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 04:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 R-RmvghYEtgS for <>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 04:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B3C0126DBF for <>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 04:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 04:20:13 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1536924013; bh=Q00Ee2cbKlU/6WhgKAbynI164ULPgYEVfe4bpIt1wXI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=oVD1gQ184PgXQHXoHkdb1dcmxE4qBnrKxOXIPuk65qiAnDHyy/jOejUt32A6UzMku VAkc3Ecrmq7j4+8sK+vY9eRAWCYhLOgcDVAxkq4p/rrIEo8HSxpWes/mUbRFbJoaEv b1SOSW/4CMe9fYh2rm8qX19YtkUcEJgeVTkP/sF4=
From: Magnus Westerlund <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1706/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Unified ACK frame (#1706)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b9b996daec08_2643fcb60cd45b8227742"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gloinul
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: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:20:16 -0000

So based on the discussion and my further analysis I think we should not adopt this pull request. I think counters are the best option, and I am fine with optimizing their representation as it will definitely save a number of bytes per ACK for long lived connections.  

When it comes to marking in this one. I think unless one have an explicit mechanism for sender to signal to receiver which ECT codepoints that are the one used then having one ECT(any) would be the better choice. Using both ECT codepoints needs additional extensions as some of the experiments with marking, like L4S does mean that packets marked with different ECT values sees different paths. Thus, there need to be mechanisms in place to handle this. 

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