Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify ACK of ACKs and bundling a PING (#2794)

MikkelFJ <> Wed, 19 June 2019 05:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A511201F3 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.605
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 Nhe6JJQr-S8w for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6A06120089 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:57:32 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560923852; bh=LA9i/3oVvSLf0w4Ag4+66t4HixTBO2AJFKiqLNOKNTg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZrEPF/+KekPec0rug6k755SZW3EKPbFBN9VeG83xkkCRbnndrnvH5e1L2DBzebPV5 W4QY9/dzo+Su5sgCFirEAjWSNyimo+8Ag+JClzJfIpldI4rdbUnEwxg3KnFnA0dp81 c+dUeSG4gP3NrqWbj8Cn77urIjSo6l6aRylA9FSs=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2794/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify ACK of ACKs and bundling a PING (#2794)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d09cecc7ba72_7dc13fca034cd968702c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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, 19 Jun 2019 05:57:36 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.

> @@ -2860,12 +2860,13 @@ valid frames? -->
 ### Sending ACK Frames
 An endpoint MUST NOT send more than one packet containing only an ACK frame per
-received packet that contains frames other than ACK and PADDING frames.
-An endpoint MUST NOT send a packet containing only an ACK frame in response
-to a packet containing only ACK or PADDING frames, even if there are packet
-gaps which precede the received packet. This prevents an indefinite feedback
-loop of ACKs. The endpoint MUST however acknowledge packets containing only
-ACK or PADDING frames when sending ACK frames in response to other packets.
+received non-ACK-eliciting packet(ie: one containing only ACK and/or PADDING

This could get messy with timeouts and retransmissions. You may want to ensure that peer has ACK but there might not be space in a packet being retransmitted.

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