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

Christian Huitema <> Thu, 13 February 2020 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303E912008C for <>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:58:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 7gs-7rM-FiqK for <>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8803E12008A for <>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC1B1204E4 for <>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:58:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581569880; bh=WXXe2x9Fm0ELZyaTc93Isa06wCbaqeMgPFrsMRf1g3Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=XwoyQgVliqYxepUjSHz738R0Wd3Fn6U9i8Ctboi1u69kdPBAM92c9gTX7XX2BXd9B 4Z8up6EDCdVaoTegFpiEqyNX5doelZsXnly44bVQykC0FfZ+bD9qaKicJ9asrcWijP MIgvgPlcwb/4LDoL26F61+dn4QwpDJH4DjpqCz3c=
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:57:59 -0800
From: Christian Huitema <>
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_5e44d757cbeae_23913fea80acd96046425"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
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, 13 Feb 2020 04:58:02 -0000

Are there any interop issues with this? Implementations keep tab of what is going on in all kind of ways. Many use "ack of ack" mechanisms to notice which ack have been acknowledged by the peer and which ack ranges can be safely pruned. Some do what Mirja described. Some don't care. Please do not try to overspecify this. 

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