Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't send PING in Initial or Handshake (#2642)

MikkelFJ <> Sat, 11 May 2019 06:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CB1120222 for <>; Fri, 10 May 2019 23:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.464
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.464 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 PqxLpESNtBho for <>; Fri, 10 May 2019 23:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 858B8120071 for <>; Fri, 10 May 2019 23:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 23:11:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1557555118; bh=yNrrWQfFP1lFnPtGCJ+MecGN5IokyKFu+juN+HFUEuk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BsjZ5ziT1EhfIaG+A2aq20iVgrzTCnv7YzpH9yD7b46MqqL1lVQWeB7mPh5gME47N 0aERa/RM3NPtqmmqHAgjvwBe6XXi+RWFJPW9MqnDllUkw+J3jqAIKx56ayOjJ5h+D2 Y/YIoXG3Lbo4YJXAEAXh3gJuJbEe2ng+8jDl4sGw=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2642/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Don't send PING in Initial or Handshake (#2642)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cd667ae951c7_6d0c3fb0fa0cd95c19933"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Sat, 11 May 2019 06:12:01 -0000

In my view the point of not sending PING early is to reduce the complexity of the early packet number spaces and allow special code to handle these. The fewer types of packets and ACK's here the better. However, if PING ends up simplifying this logic, then certainly there is an argument for that. The question then is: would PING' complicate ACK logic in early packet number spaces? That would only really be the case if there were no ACK's otherwise since PING's are easy to handle. 

OTOH - if it is only a matter of cleaning up two paragraphs in the spec it may not be worthwhile. An exception may be the natural thing if the PTO logic is in fact separate anyway in the different PN spaces.

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