IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Merge text on what not to send in response to ACKs (#4855)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 30 March 2021 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18863A11E0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.573 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9rcLOylLJ-oP for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4312D3A11E8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-b1dbc9c.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.125.60]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 653875605A2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1617143910; bh=lCUdLaUAU9ZRvvVnloOwg2IBzQGUwVXmF+zv/7qjbGE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=bO/hYS0Lnq7f2aWh/mfQFC1FCiE6mZ/KOXENvoUvPXTT9Q9Fruz62oJ4Le7timyCF tHoHq5llDIwen1vbuCoBtIHsJYT+YWmY8gJ+9sRnpj+k8EBOECfx5SHK4wDLxzqWIK 7M8QTi7YeCYmktjFa6vBpPvvAsLKdSB4jGl66ZwE=
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:38:30 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2WZ5XF6ZDUM7UZKON6N6EWNEVBNHHDEPEN7I@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4855/review/624758970@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4855@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4855@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Merge text on what not to send in response to ACKs (#4855)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_6063a866629e2_4c18101194c7"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/MBGIdN1i5rSsYns8IOofrzXEoq0>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 22:38:34 -0000

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

After having discussed this, I think that I'm opposed to this change.  @janaiyengar points out that the moved sentence more directly links to the paragraph preceding it.

There is a gap here.  We don't say here that you might deliberately include ack-eliciting frames in packets that are otherwise non-ack-eliciting so that you can get an acknowledgment.  The moved text here is about this case, saying that you can't do that every time.  It's missing that important context though.



-- 
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/pull/4855#pullrequestreview-624758970

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email