Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rewrite section on ack range limiting (#3315)

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 02 January 2020 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02741200E7 for <>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:49:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 mtcoNwZStQwz for <>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:49:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4543D120024 for <>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:49:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976FA52043F for <>; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:49:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578005353; bh=EOkYpd6x++kP18XZyHdBH1XkzeV4vRJKOx4o7ygIRak=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Dn4RWsmihJMSp5wlDfFAO/DYv77UImF0OfqizaF3myIPmwV970x5D6mg0IVJqs9R2 BLVWpqXyPMTrJjoeYa8B8RnjHvN6DMoCMTPGQ1hgiX1+qRdrlgqJo7ShhAzs4mgWkn KxIUy6AVtGjD0fPLzNhXp7WBv/n3blMG/ceVSaGU=
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 14:49:13 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3315/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rewrite section on ack range limiting (#3315)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e0e7369885d4_2fd93f92992cd95c1335ae"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 22:49:16 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> -contribute to the ACK frame size.  When the receiver is only sending
-non-ack-eliciting packets, it can bundle a PING or other small ack-eliciting
-frame with a fraction of them, such as once per round trip, to enable
-dropping unnecessary ACK ranges and any state for previously sent packets.
-The receiver MUST NOT bundle an ack-eliciting frame, such as a PING, with all
-packets that would otherwise be non-ack-eliciting, in order to avoid an
-infinite feedback loop of acknowledgements.
-To limit receiver state or the size of ACK frames, a receiver MAY limit the
-number of ACK Ranges it sends.  A receiver can do this even without receiving
-acknowledgment of its ACK frames, with the knowledge this could cause the sender
-to unnecessarily retransmit some data.  Standard QUIC algorithms
-({{QUIC-RECOVERY}}) declare packets lost after sufficiently newer packets are
-acknowledged.  Therefore, the receiver SHOULD repeatedly acknowledge newly
-received packets in preference to packets received in the past.
+A receiver MAY limit the number of ACK Ranges it sends to limit receiver state

Yeah, this might be better as an axiomatic statement.  How about:

> A receiver limits the number of ACK Ranges ({{ack-ranges}}) it remembers and sends in ACK frames, both to limit the size of ACK frames and to avoid resource exhaustion.  A receiver SHOULD stop tracking ACK Ranges after receiving acknowledgments for ACK frames containing ACK Ranges.
> It is possible that retaining many ACK Ranges could cause an ACK frame to become too large.  A receiver can discard unacknowledged ACK Ranges to limit ACK frame size.  This is necessary if an ACK frame would be too large to fit in a packet, however receivers MAY also limit ACK frame size further to preserve space for other frames.
> When discarding unacknowledged ACK Ranges, a receiver MUST retain the largest acknowledged packet number.  A receiver SHOULD retain ACK Ranges containing newly received packets or higher-numbered packets.

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