Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Changing the Default QUIC ACK Policy (#3529)

Gorry Fairhurst <> Tue, 24 March 2020 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7873A09BE for <>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 05:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.008 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_16=1.092, 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 PwZ2pXALEGXf for <>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 05:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CE603A09AF for <>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 05:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915BF9603C7 for <>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 05:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585054337; bh=PZW0exDqqCmj96bPAHgh5vYGbzdwWSOYF1O/e/f8DXw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=fVIbndx3MYfCiysw2pJ/x3nfC7+6p0XT/zauIiaNeqIn7/f8up33nWrbg0eSwRHQM Ij3QGLqTSjlJFYhDGlG8MZcthHgfL1HbL0Wz443vBNcfDNXBVmZksTQWeGCkAviVd0 X73zFJpucJknnZxjOYEJpBQr9MU8QGos8q6iIWes=
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 05:52:17 -0700
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3529/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Changing the Default QUIC ACK Policy (#3529)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7a0281820cc_651b3fc89d4cd95c2588e6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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, 24 Mar 2020 12:52:20 -0000

May be "yes", may be "no" on a larger size after loss - since QUIC ACK ranges are often larger - but that depends on loss pattern, etc. In our case, we saw more bytes. 
But "yes" on me saying there is a need for QUIC to make good default decisions about the ACK rate, because QUIC becomes responsible for transport working across heterogeneous paths and we need to get good defaults rather than rely on "ACK-Thining" and other network modification.

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