Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Extension frames and congestion/flow control (#1811)

[ianswett <[e-mail]>]

I'm of the opinion that even though QUIC can enable 2), it's neither a typical use case nor the one we should encourage, since I don't think it's feasible to respect CWND if you don't increase bytes_in_flight.

There's a specific exception in the text for ACK frame replacements and supplements:  "The exception is extension frames that replace or supplement the ACK frame."

PADDING is weird because people requested it behave as it does.  Admittedly, if it didn't have it's current behavior of increasing bytes_in_flight without eliciting an ACK, it would be identical to the PING frame.  It's certainly a potential footgun and there's some text in recovery noting that, though it could be a little stronger: "Note that this means PADDING frames cause packets to contribute toward bytes in flight without directly causing an acknowledgment to be sent.


-- 
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/1811#issuecomment-426001039