Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

Igor Lubashev <> Sun, 01 March 2020 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A213A0888 for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 08:39:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 E6Rh5UvclnWP for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 08:39:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E09E13A0895 for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 08:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B681210BC for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 08:39:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583080773; bh=BS59fEuSsnsvUnzeTnYGMmlINCRvBLRCTwZvgMJUmLA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jsdYLfTZWW7Jj/pFHxHB2wc+LEErSs1GAv10homIVRcgjPgxkdjP0FHVZNk5hB202 h47Cth5SkcK/j+lkMZj3xY05ETu9FG+hn3ahyIsGfbfu5A3PKkbZn8+LhufSIr5f6M JLbxUWpUqtaFZoiWGdCCe9QnArUWlqHtr7sWDPpY=
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 08:39:33 -0800
From: Igor Lubashev <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e5be5452bf62_259a3ffc25ccd95c15594d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 16:39:37 -0000

Happy to discuss acknowledgement reliability, though I want to point out that the two issues are related.  If it is decided that non-ACK-eliciting packets will be acknowledged eventually (except for special circumstances, such as connection termination or packet number space issues), then it informs the "considered lost" discussion.

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