Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK generation recommendation (#3304)

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

@ianswett: TCP does have a formal requirement which we cite in the recovery draft right now. From RFC 5681:
```
   The delayed ACK algorithm specified in [RFC1122] SHOULD be used by a
   TCP receiver.  When using delayed ACKs, a TCP receiver MUST NOT
   excessively delay acknowledgments.  Specifically, an ACK SHOULD be
   generated for at least every second full-sized segment, and MUST be
   generated within 500 ms of the arrival of the first unacknowledged
   packet.
```
The problem is that this is quite dated and the TCP ecosystem has corrected for this by collapsing ACKs in the network. Additionally, the two major QUIC clients deployed right now -- FB and Chrome -- neither follows this recommendation. It seems silly to continue saying SHOULD when we expect it to not be followed.

Also, @kazuho [raises an interesting  point](https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304#issuecomment-566819837). Chrome is likely to be speaking to servers that might be using Cubic or Reno in the near future. Do you recall how serious the degradation with Chrome's ACKing scheme was? With 1/8th RTT?

-- 
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/3304#issuecomment-566855421