Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rewrite section on ack range limiting (#3315)

ianswett <> Tue, 07 January 2020 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEB412001A for <>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 06:55:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 Tu0-1_DOiaIr for <>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 06:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3C5A12003E for <>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 06:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:55:44 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578408945; bh=zxi2mn0cBDAQv9SDCcVDhQMSscdbLG20OwfihvLnHaE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=CEEeGh+b/0UDP1vf5mIq0XEgpBt8PpR3+KsJp+JiyFNSYdhHdEuElnEiuht5UumgS BG+Qmechh6+Au5Ax2ibsdD0Z67WxzL6epcfegf8KHPdod6+t6QcLKD53vncPOVROUg ffO4Hw6nblcBP5KyGMlmTpzd9e2dIJh2P55YB/44=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3315/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rewrite section on ack range limiting (#3315)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e149bf0cf77b_5a423ffc706cd96c574fe"; 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: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 14:55:48 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> -contribute to the ACK frame size.  When the receiver is only sending
-non-ack-eliciting packets, it can bundle a PING or other small ack-eliciting
-frame with a fraction of them, such as once per round trip, to enable
-dropping unnecessary ACK ranges and any state for previously sent packets.
-The receiver MUST NOT bundle an ack-eliciting frame, such as a PING, with all
-packets that would otherwise be non-ack-eliciting, in order to avoid an
-infinite feedback loop of acknowledgements.
-To limit receiver state or the size of ACK frames, a receiver MAY limit the
-number of ACK Ranges it sends.  A receiver can do this even without receiving
-acknowledgment of its ACK frames, with the knowledge this could cause the sender
-to unnecessarily retransmit some data.  Standard QUIC algorithms
-({{QUIC-RECOVERY}}) declare packets lost after sufficiently newer packets are
-acknowledged.  Therefore, the receiver SHOULD repeatedly acknowledge newly
-received packets in preference to packets received in the past.
+A receiver MAY limit the number of ACK Ranges it sends to limit receiver state

This is a good point, though it might deserve its own PR/Issue?  I thought we had text on dropping packets with packet numbers that had already been processed, but I couldn't find it in transport.

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