IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Out of order relative to other ack-eliciting packets (#4000)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 18 August 2020 17:37 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 4E17B3A089B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 UDcxU3op8RYA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBA793A0890 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-cde56e0.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-cde56e0.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.25.52]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA155E07A2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1597772265; bh=kuUVt346amYyq5veYNVSk7IQgnarOHLa1chsgUABJ5A=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=VXzIUAG8khD+9nmHVY16cStLWGkOCfNiMQf6Hzi0pGiQIruFVhhCZL0D47ScIDz6L T7Ktrg/vj8/kYJ29e/V+YpVRJ38DamOLCpsCVLc7Rm3by/6LVsOYhYTfg2yXKHB6jV JxEB8/or/TAoz6negSDDa2/PanOHvnuo4QoTP350=
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:37:45 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK24CGS3VNSLSUJRS655I7ZOTEVBNHHCRBJDQE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000/review/469681191@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Out of order relative to other ack-eliciting packets (#4000)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3c11e9aea1_356519641228d0"; 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/P4eJs_V1c0Ktv0dUkjDpnMMlOiM>
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, 18 Aug 2020 17:37:47 -0000

@ianswett commented on this pull request.



> +The endpoint SHOULD NOT continue sending ACK frames immediately unless one of
+the above criteria are satisfied.

This is an effort to keep the existing text, but rework it to refer to the criteria that's been reworked to no longer mention out of order.

Specifically, the existing text is "The endpoint SHOULD NOT continue sending ACK frames immediately unless more ack-eliciting packets are received out of order."

The goal of this text is: you should send one immediate ACK if the above happens, but don't keep sending immediate ACKs for every subsequent ack-eliciting packet, because that would be excessive.

Suggestions welcome.

-- 
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/4000#discussion_r472368830

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status