IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send an immediate ACK (#2025)

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Tue, 29 January 2019 07:15 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 9F6BB130F1B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:15:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 G-RY3rlHmMfb for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:15:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1F09130EFC for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:15:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:15:24 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1548746124; bh=u0cVUdJSiXb21FJoKTLibvJxxYkdjBEFaiae7MmEz5E=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=s10xOVHnOWLK7ACNjChN+koptYeF52O8/qzB/LUaDQSbyYaPdKgpxpgL3IFCOjsr2 CtG6rrrCjKAQjz+od8ZPR6r4st/w0yNJ/mevmz5/TGcMjXcJAerytuXmVUGfJAovN0 JVhoDXZRttzWE7mtejgApXCx1GZMMnOjcLuB/nP8=
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab12cf418bafaa787ad2da6e5f7af6db863471d26592cf000000011867bf8c92a169ce16d11972@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2025/review/197404149@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2025@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2025@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send an immediate ACK (#2025)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c4ffd8cf12d6_18ac3f958e4d45b4390711"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
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/BsxV4emtLtuygW0fEtTYTErH9mI>
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: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:15:27 -0000

martinduke commented on this pull request.



>  
 Out-of-order packets SHOULD be acknowledged more quickly, in order to accelerate
 loss recovery.  The receiver SHOULD send an immediate ACK when it receives a new
-packet which is not one greater than the largest received packet number.
+packet which is not the next expected one. That is, its packet number is not one

Again, there are SHOULDs on top of SHOULDs here. How about this for a paragraph:

"Quicker acknowledgement of out-of-order packets may accelerate loss detection. Upon receipt of a packet number not one more than the previous maximum received, receivers SHOULD separately acknowledge it and the next few packets, but not more than five."

This is shorter, has only one SHOULD, and places a recommended limit that is less subjective than "a few".

-- 
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/2025#pullrequestreview-197404149

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email