Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of ACK are useful (#2546)

[Ryan Hamilton <[e-mail]>]

Completely agree. Ian hits on the key point here. In the case of an
endpoint that would like to limit the amount of state it stores, it's
highly desirable for THAT endpoint to be in control. ACK+PING, satisfies
that. Relying on ACKs of ACKs from the peer does not, sadly.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 4:45 PM ianswett <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'd argue that ACK+PING isn't a hack, but instead a simple way for the
> sender, whose state we're trying to limit, to balance the amount of state
> it stores vs the extra ACKs being received.
>
> Getting the peer to implement the correct ACK behavior by sending a single
> extra byte is much simpler and more robust in my experience than relying on
> the receiver to implement an "ACK every 10/20/etc ACKs" policy in a way
> that every sender is happy with.
>
> This could likely use more text and there's still an outstanding editorial
> issue to move most of the ACK sending text that's in recovery into
> transport, so it's all in one place, since I believe there are currently a
> few subtle inconsistencies.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2546#issuecomment-475914488>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASp6ylBWKH5j6-TBeb21ZPBIzGuBNMnZks5vZryJgaJpZM4cE7-W>
> .
>


-- 
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/2546#issuecomment-475922869