Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] editorial: This sentence was hard to parse for me (recovery) (#3383)

Jana Iyengar <> Thu, 23 January 2020 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05ED912006F for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:39:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y5kLBHrmDBF8 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76E61120018 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8052C1712 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:39:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579747158; bh=+iVQwv/2HQ+1soy5YrVGluf8ti9BkXjdUU5JNmzq2Mo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=w6yvza1ks0j7XnDJW13hbpTwYjMWwGYPY8cIV6nlfZRdm0ebqObk4mhHYl51dT9hj 2BtSpx0PjSzI2kZG+rYa9cOmSMoE03JHDYwqVoNsq8/6ID6qy5kbQKugRpyzT5HBDF oMEHPfIkf6YGHQsts136LBbjfyr7AXIPahAadclI=
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:39:18 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3383/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] editorial: This sentence was hard to parse for me (recovery) (#3383)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2907569b936_51843fa37decd960207991"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:39:21 -0000

janaiyengar commented on this pull request.

> @@ -272,9 +272,10 @@ SHOULD NOT be used to update RTT estimates if it does not newly acknowledge the
 largest acknowledged packet.
 An RTT sample MUST NOT be generated on receiving an ACK frame that does not
-newly acknowledge at least one ack-eliciting packet.  A peer does not send an
-ACK frame on receiving only non-ack-eliciting packets, so an ACK frame that is
-subsequently sent can include an arbitrarily large Ack Delay field.  Ignoring
+newly acknowledge at least one ack-eliciting packet. A peer usually does not
+send an ACK frame when only non-ack-eliciting packets are received. Therefore
+an ACK frame that only contains acknowledgements for non-ack-eliciting packets

an ACK frame that contains acknowledgements for only non-ack-eliciting packets

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