[quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify ACK sending text in transport (#3480)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Mon, 24 February 2020 14:51 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 EFC5A3A0CA2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:51:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 j9y_aDSJaXOb for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:51:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 946C73A0C9D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:51:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c5134a3.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.55]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F78B6E140D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:51:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1582555863; bh=57TEWjYCvAugzd+qyzNPFRr0blPkHxbL65/seO1Tn2o=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=O8VGvOOV0uviy3qLhavnY4uOrpDV9Pwzl0zYXUramP8vFEFSGStYYF8e+O0mnpbs3 T7ekPP/bqsJkz7GNxVLlxoRcaSw9I9nJoE37AEKp0i0XMMFMQNsJ0JcP/+RBgB0fpM ejbBIqS6nUU9rMjxpL8tKbyi8ZZu5Wa+3/Qg8aak=
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 06:51:03 -0800
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5E3YNVVQYMC2MZ3SF4MEKVPEVBNHHCD6AV3A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3480@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify ACK sending text in transport (#3480)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e53e2d77006f_4e1b3fc46a4cd95c816db"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/OnR17_55VBzpCF36VG7VbmcPMQA>
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: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:51:06 -0000

The end of #3451 strayed into whether you could expect ACKs for non-ack-eliciting packets and why it was a SHOULD not a MUST to ACK every ACK-only packet at least once.

I'm filing this to add some text about cases when you definitely would not expect to receive an ACK of an ACK-only packet(ie: connection close and dropping PN space) and clarify that a sender cannot rely on receiving an acknowledgement of every packet, whether it's ack-eliciting or not, because ACKs get lost.

It's also possible there needs to be more clarity around "An endpoint MUST NOT send a non-ack-eliciting packet in response to a non-ack-eliciting packet, even if there are packet gaps which precede the received packet." since I intended to disallow Igor's suggestion when I wrote that.

-- 
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/3480