Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is ACK delay zero for Initial and Handshake ACK frames? (#3459)

ianswett <> Fri, 14 February 2020 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F7E1200FA for <>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 07:32:38 -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 VawsI3J2mYz6 for <>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 07:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B72241200B4 for <>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 07:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 07:32:35 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581694355; bh=eQkgoNe5/IKzEU0OBdIYADqQABeHwupo0dMUkAwvyj8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=nSENuBwAr6DEOJUEzI1hZStf2r2lLM6VbAbghcBnDAKQP3fXeqoTb28wTClNE/iAU SWTaDaKvTFNTAxAusqXP3t4n/MSOcmne7IEv5b78GvAS2T0cPBJ3PLrXPIOkuIvCeU BMG8V35xdtBi0M/atH07pXqB/1QJ2QgWj5ssQ8k0=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3459/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Is ACK delay zero for Initial and Handshake ACK frames? (#3459)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e46bd93b1214_7b2a3fa1b3acd96c7995a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:32:38 -0000

The intent is to use 0 as a peer max_ack_delay for the Initial and Handshake packet number spaces.

The pseudocode says:
 ack_delay = min(Ack Delay in ACK Frame, max_ack_delay)

So for Initial and Handshake, min(Ack Delay, 0) = 0 

The text in the "Estimating smoothed RTT and RTTVar" section is fairly clear I think?
"- MUST ignore the Ack Delay field of the ACK frame for packets sent in the
   Initial and Handshake packet number space."

I fixed the section reference in #3460 

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