Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packet implicity ACK it (#698)
ekr <notifications@github.com> Wed, 06 September 2017 21:18 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 6F5AD132026 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, 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 z-gQsQGu89f7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext3.iad.github.net [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E9CC132A81 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 14:18:24 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1504732704; bh=vMs68mZAHVJE8qKTofxkDs1jymXuoZ/EMmy9iiyApSM=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WZ3vcDQujXK7YFlEMe4gM82O15gyEo27Tu3X8yuWM9uNry/BEf+UyHdNftXdI3WS5 BBXMhaegXAnnUH3sRIvQz3WuQLZQ4phHON4V3cL2j6CuJC3j0w7puP50wYbqAPdasV U2sFmPbbgXoFyvWJlZrvse1q/lXldlTwnsEwEdaQ=
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab259f156bf6a5a1f381491443c9e54846eb95cf0592cf0000000115c8282092a169ce0ea843fe@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698/327615368@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packet implicity ACK it (#698)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_59b0662062ab4_1cae3fd8ec13bc30132689"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/EjiJCoinhqq20leGeSAADaSRbJU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 06 Sep 2017 21:18:26 -0000
I agree with @martinduke that we should discuss this. I would prefer one of two choices: - Merge them (so you only have to say it once) - Make it impossible to say inconsistent things (e.g., by having an optional Timestamp attached to each ACK block that refers to the highest numbered ACK in each block or something) -- 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/issues/698#issuecomment-327615368
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packe… Subodh Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… Subodh Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… Martin Thomson