Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 12 February 2020 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9E412006B for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.682
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.682 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 UaS_E8w1gPwE for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17F20120052 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCB48C0062 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581490703; bh=aGKLJ5gEA3FkKRl7qxAxhPw1/XDcduGgHRAN6zbr8Fs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Jg1WPssx11yU2BmAzIbK7/0dcq0N9JX/P9nH3v5Zcj0lfupA6BE7gTuBnPG4hUN3i PmjPSRjBm3cRiTLy63pqIXIG/8x5xVXhXA6H4yirOHeXxm3kperGH2n8ZqegRyQxOH 66lzYjRjGsk2hwZs7ln3BXTjhSBOeejorRrfE7XU=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:23 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e43a20f4d2a8_5c03faa958cd96014144e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 06:58:25 -0000

@marten-seemann is right.  You don't allow ACK-only packets to be limited by the congestion controller.  I believe that don't is "can't" in practice.

And we should prioritize acknowledgements over data.  There's a point where you can't do anything but ACK, but that's the case no matter what we decide here.

All I'm saying is that loss of an ACK-only packet is a signal that we are being encouraged to ignore right now, for no good reason.

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