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

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 12 February 2020 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9E412006B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.682
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UaS_E8w1gPwE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-28.smtp.github.com (out-28.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17F20120052 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-edec459.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-edec459.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.18.32]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCB48C0062 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:58:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK45POMQGF4ZP2MTJYN4KDKI7EVBNHHCDF6P4Q@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/585059284@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/9T0lIQ7WazzmELr3xbK4FRfmH0s>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451#issuecomment-585059284