[quicwg/base-drafts] Irrelevant normative language in section recommending ack-range limits (#3316)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

In trying to do a simple fix for #3311, I found other irrelevant or poorly-written recommendations in how a receiver could limit ACK ranges it sends. This section needs to be rewritten.

Specifically, the sentence below is a poor recommendation and contradicts earlier recommendation on acking until the ACK frame is acknowledged.
```
   The receiver SHOULD
   exclude already acknowledged packets from future ACK frames whenever
   these packets would unnecessarily contribute to the ACK frame size.
```

The recommendation below is fine, but the rationale does not make sense:
```
   Standard QUIC algorithms ([QUIC-RECOVERY]) declare
   packets lost after sufficiently newer packets are acknowledged.
   Therefore, the receiver SHOULD repeatedly acknowledge newly received
   packets in preference to packets received in the past.
```

This should be a design change.

-- 
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/3316