Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Complicated Retransmission Corner Cases (#765)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

When I was toying with this, I wound up tracking the delivery state of frames, not packets.  Each retransmittable frame was pending send, in-flight, or delivered.  Each packet that was outstanding was simply a list of frames that it contained, and changing a packet to lost or delivered was really walking its packets and updating *their* state.  Every time I generated a packet, I filled it as full as possible with frames that were pending send, with retransmissions being first.  And I agree, it's hairy.

You're right that you eventually need to get rid of the lists from old lost packets, but ought to maintain them for a little while in case the packet (or the ACK) is merely delayed.  However, there's no great harm in throwing it away too early (as you say, you'll get an ACK for a packet you no longer know anything about, and so accidentally resend a frame) and I'd say that can be left to the implementation.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/765#issuecomment-327867668