Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)

Jana Iyengar <> Tue, 09 April 2019 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56801201F1 for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 mCA_8HTLm9YS for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62FA91201F0 for <>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 18:32:59 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1554773579; bh=JM0KQlYIwUzf4jjURBZkvh1yABqbwyUPXrscpsYYfa8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=rXFLY3lN1+3b7ArVBMQWiv34ifBOfB1CqFdmJ9IKscZLpExHsU86RZIJ5WJVTcxl3 6goJPzoO3ZLwR993PzbKvYB7Q+8kT+UmL+1AdeoOnAXnhYowk/1uuOQeUSr5ILwJ+B tPOhtbk8puuUtaPoyuMYzzwFEQPB3uLapgri0tRs=
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2568/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Reduce restrictions on valid RTT samples (#2568)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cabf64b6105c_52e33ff40aad45c4331c8"; 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
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, 09 Apr 2019 01:33:02 -0000

@marten-seemann : Agreed, which is why I said that it's not necessary to track non-ack-eliciting packets.  We already say  in the transport draft that an endpoint not send an ACK if all it's received is ACKs.  Is that what you meant?

The problem here is that a peer might decide to piggyback an ACK frame with some other stuff it is about to send (MAX_STREAM_DATA perhaps). That could result in an ACK frame that acks only non-ack-eliciting packets. It seems unnecessary to put the burden on a peer to not send this ack. It's just as easy to ignore such acks when received.

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