IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 12 February 2020 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3FCF1200B2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:46:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QThbaIDsi2QK for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9394120058 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE36296049C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:46:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1581479216; bh=+OMhs5Y6VzR7u84rYlVmmybvCU+MjX0Be6RyDXqfvsk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ugMJZev00CRroWZ8RJvLVs1KHMRMOh4fFHnG3Ny74jUolxpheLhaT4K8AkpBHgr5F WHyIuD5pn4Mb3d7PKFYVrghDOeG5roaO6cihS1pI4DqBaBYCoILYAhFNAWTdHmKre2 lUmWT0vkKqcuwkToevJbOwmZB8g6lOh5JDxJDEsw=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:46:56 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7ZHSECIEV5RC2JJ454KCT3BEVBNHHCDF6P4Q@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/585013482@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e437530ddb43_60af3fda104cd96414129f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/47wlV-C86a-wBpGHFR3ETjyXuXU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 03:47:00 -0000

We should at least recognize that ACK-only packets can be declared lost.  One interpretation of the current text is that ACK-only packets MUST NOT be declared lost.

The reason that you might not want to declare these as lost that is that the requirements for acknowledging ACK-only packets are (necessarily) more loose than ACK-eliciting packets.  But I believe that it is simpler to allow code to declare them lost.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you have one fewer condition if you ignore whether a packet is in flight or not when doing loss detection.  It is also likely better to mark lost ACKs as lost as it means that you don't ignore a potential congestion signal.

-- 
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/issues/3451#issuecomment-585013482

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email