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

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 01 January 2020 04:05 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 2452B12006F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:05:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 vZJ6luHYFcBf for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9C3112006E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.31]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195C3660A9F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:04:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1577851499; bh=3Jj7zYjcGRWf1ImIlyPOZ/HzlzYpLQDZuAinw4Cb3ko=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Cflnw2O/FTZmOe4IYtN/2Mcv4J6F18sXjCcwaNSvGFSIqQ2K8wSprLJ4hy332KnRQ zvp7GT4Z/+vLWosmrxsMXXuIO98qpygN+9yqI8k794pUVnNJ/gcIaB7PHd+ArJhqXH dtgRcqipw5nTGrr995BDWRcrVtNac3dqwmhJzZ6w=
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:04:59 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6ENHZYN3IABO7XS2N4DFGOXEVBNHHCA4LXMM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3316@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Irrelevant normative language in section recommending ack-range limits (#3316)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e0c1a6b9210_76e73fd8e80cd964632560"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/4knqBt5xcb2vznfzK4elKYEvNcc>
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, 01 Jan 2020 04:05:01 -0000

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