Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] OnPacketsLost for Nonretransmittable Packets (#2015)

Praveen Balasubramanian <> Thu, 22 November 2018 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C844130DEC for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:28:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 488p8CfS4R4e for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:28:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A919E1252B7 for <>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:28:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:28:36 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1542853716; bh=igWOAgOQ20Eq/tlHzCxLY8KlcEXLBZcwiUoum0YZRMs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EwL4DaEAU2H77/sebJBmmUE1lkUz34L25IJdZafNfdRAqEkCXt+fk4mrW3A3AEjyN gr1ueYjW/X8Z0rsnuUs/7YuDOiNdgbWHsQpWGPc+c3p6Uw6hRhTfkEGqWnLsGfG2au F+Vt3f1lEU3o64uRC3CSiAWOvZnFJLjwZ3eGbjoA=
From: Praveen Balasubramanian <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2015/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] OnPacketsLost for Nonretransmittable Packets (#2015)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf614541cdf_2f9b3fc71d8d45b81987f7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: pravb
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: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 02:28:39 -0000

With TCP typically ACKs get piggybacked since each data packet carries the ACK number. For a TCP that is generating data, generating pure ACKs is a rarity. And its very hard to detect a pure ACK loss in TCP. 
I assume even with QUIC, unless the implementation goes out of its way, ACKs should get piggybacked  with data? If ACKs are always sent separately then I would question this decision since unlike TCP they are occupying network bandwidth. At the least we should document that ACKs must be piggybacked whenever possible.

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