Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Implicitly Acknowledging CRYTPO Data (#1741)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

This is precisely the subject of discussion at the last IETF meeting.  It might help to review that.   What the implementation is doing here is valid: it operates loss detection on Initial packets independent of other packets.  To some extent, that's necessary.

That the handshake has proceeded and that activity at the next epoch indicates successful receipt of the necessary packets is extra information you aren't required to assimilate, but as @rpaulo says, you are free to do so.  We explicitly decided not to prohibit the optimization suggested, but nor do we require that anyone implement the optimization.  All THAT means is that you can't assume that the other side is going to stop sending you Initial+CRYPTO if you don't acknowledge it.

The exchange @nibanks describes is entirely valid as implemented, if suboptimal.  That's all.

-- 
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/1741#issuecomment-420838259