IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST ACK each ack-eliciting packet once (#3092)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Wed, 23 October 2019 07:34 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 2AB94120046 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_HI=-5, 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 GuT7ZYDSQ6ad for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-6.smtp.github.com (out-6.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6EF9120024 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-cde56e0.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-cde56e0.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.25.52]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8814D1C2F47 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1571816077; bh=2zaJw3CFFQ4wxLmVwkp4r04lqiOncdfrlprO507QeTk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1kRR4mSVjDdqB/9Yq4aglz/SRTTJo5rmlSdbPegaDBEVqAV6xx6IJwdkwI8paP5OT Y3NWMlWsJdAplFOoPMCE+lJmMb1w8OzGEEEW+a9m5IFV/YxUiswL+0Is+ncGeWKvJB KFcJENXYLC6PIY0vu3eM5tO25XXaS+LBQCsVB0pk=
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:34:37 -0700
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6DAVIHG4WGULBB7BV3XVBR3EVBNHHB4ODZTE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3092/review/305683731@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3092@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3092@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST ACK each ack-eliciting packet once (#3092)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5db0028d793d2_7d363ff149ccd95c1780e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/9__D5wzbbLC4G-O8W964hRHpB4Y>
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, 23 Oct 2019 07:34:40 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> +Every packet SHOULD be acknowledged at least once, and ack-eliciting packets
+MUST be acknowledged at least once within the maximum ack delay. An endpoint

I think the biggest problem is if the peer assumes a packet was not processed if it eventually concludes it was not ACK'ed. That could lead to deadlocks or double spending in some poor transactional design.


-- 
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/pull/3092#discussion_r337888881

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email