Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move Generating Acknowledgements to Transport (#2916)

ianswett <> Sun, 21 July 2019 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50E1120127 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
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 hj0H_hf2FE0N for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A833120094 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:06:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1563736015; bh=QyuMbCQqJ2aJU3NYDOxBqqvf3iUNvFn5cWFp+FCGbgc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=vQbWVsH6phVokZwqrpDoX3KQZlDPWJRoK9kC06vm0kUmM2cG4+kmQo7cytOahBIMw nnqXbGeh+5LpCPcNdaXcZveQN1ztSMNnHf3cgsrwDgpLiKZraG0Dvx47xs0klkY3eq 74J0aUsEIgUFfusMrb7ZOuZZV49Ci05BEAfVfFEc=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2916/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move Generating Acknowledgements to Transport (#2916)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d34b7cf1ce65_a003ff392acd9689397be"; 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
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: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:06:58 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2880,6 +2880,28 @@ packet.
 expectations about what implementations do with packets that have errors after
 valid frames? -->
+## Generating Acknowledgements {#generating-acks}
+An acknowledgement SHOULD be sent immediately upon receipt of a second
+ack-eliciting packet. QUIC recovery algorithms do not assume the peer sends
+an ACK immediately when receiving a second ack-eliciting packet.
+In order to accelerate loss recovery and reduce timeouts, the receiver SHOULD
+send an immediate ACK after it receives an out-of-order packet. It could send

Yes, both would be considered out of order.  I thought we already said to send an immediate ACK when the PN is not 1 larger than the largest processed packet number, but I can't find it.

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