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

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 12 February 2020 04:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B5012006D for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 20:15:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 CC26xBnwrmRo for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 20:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0444A120058 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 20:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF0F6E13A7 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 20:15:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581480925; bh=6BeW1SFJ3FWx3sSV2fzxZs9JRH9747z3IIzZcZePGOw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hy8GkLNB/LYIWkMzoNIPMMW+oFDBsjaaJiLIIqQSB2FujvZlblX9+D3Mh16FKNg67 1VxFI5VkC1HphQSKrQQH+mrhMnzUAsUX35fn77NCPpdoviTw1d3sFtYrp9d8PCnwhc Czl8h52rC2JqDQdrvSJnTL8d8Mql3zwLj/24QhPw=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 20:15:25 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5e437bdd8c024_5b53ff309ecd95c134324"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 04:15:29 -0000

The problem is that a loss event has impact on CC, which applies to the amount of data the endpoint sends.

IIUC, the basis of CC is that an endpoint throttles the bandwidth *it* uses based on the loss rate of data *it* sent. However, generation of ACKs is not controlled by the endpoint. It's controlled by the peer.

Consider the case of in-flight wifi that uses a satellite link. The client (web browser) could be sending far more ACK-only packets than ACK-eliciting packets. In such case, I am concerned about the impact of taking loss of ACK-only packets into calculation.

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