Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Changing the Default QUIC ACK Policy (#3529)

Mark Nottingham <> Tue, 26 May 2020 05:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137563A0B0E for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 mPxVoUvhGiXm for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65E153A0B09 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD531C02F3 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 22:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1590471543; bh=CgC1yT24kJSt7cIfBGqRACJXikZXaH6F+L1Q8iQAqEM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CxjPdTMs43vb7OGmATzYXQquopsy+PXxCQ/od+5rEpL9nk14k3RwUMxL0acF7MvBh SaroXHgcDv0Vj27Ao5JsnBmqJxzfNxkDmKe4mkOF33VPTf5sdSygCdDyf63rHLiyb6 4jQAfWazs3NjPadCSZZRuae+nH1PoHb9lLFsSESE=
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 22:39:03 -0700
From: Mark Nottingham <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3529/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Changing the Default QUIC ACK Policy (#3529)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eccab7781501_57de3fb1dd8cd95c242664"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mnot
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: Tue, 26 May 2020 05:39:07 -0000

Given that this is an area where there is still obviously experimentation and refinement, @bbriscoe's comment seems on point; baking a specific algorithm as requirements into the specifications doesn't seem like a good idea (although putting constraints on endpoints might make sense).

Can we focus on general guidance rather than documenting a specific algorithm? What would that PR look like?

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