Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Packet number echo with variable-length numbering (#391)

[martinduke <[e-mail]>]

Option 1 is more conservative, and what I had first envisioned, but Option 2 is certainly enticing. I secretly suspect that both ingress and egress largest packet numbers will have to be stored in the PCB somewhere, so it might not be too painful to implement. (Although if incoming packets are reordered, so the largest acked field drops momentarily, that could get messy...)

Whether or not a packet has any user data is opaque enough to make any ack-dropping middlebox behavior so dangerous, that I doubt anyone would actually try it.

So I think I am leaning towards option 2. The strongest counterargument I can see is @ianswett 's off-github comment that under option 1, endpoints can simply eliminate the echo if middleboxes are doing bad things with it.

-- 
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/391#issuecomment-286918882