IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Largest acked in ACK frame MUST NOT decrease (#2205)

Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com> Mon, 07 January 2019 14:59 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 16FC4130E9E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 06:59:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, 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_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 mp9OCQ2PlkWE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 06:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E7FC1276D0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 06:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 06:59:11 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1546873151; bh=ZqXBHwjerOnExRND9L48Tw0YBd85twTWWnHddqskpg0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=w3f8u6maQt+1EpaHRHpIxhKYJntqhmiRSOcZdv0REIupG3k3+uYfQkGfyOQiLfEbq +p4Mn0qiKxKwF+jCWjj9jEPMYXgPozflKoMCrS/NpahvzvZOkaFb7VG11yJAD6oOqt c+CF90K9ys2cJZAH3rS18p7cYvJmC6oMIhjVW/cg=
From: Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab89318dc5d065037457c1b3c050ecec53748c30b792cf00000001184b2b3f92a169ce1762ed93@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2205/451961932@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2205@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2205@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Largest acked in ACK frame MUST NOT decrease (#2205)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c33693f1666a_3e7c3f80146d45c4188993"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gloinul
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/Prb2uV9qUQ1ib_8w_9be8lF-Gv0>
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, 07 Jan 2019 14:59:14 -0000

Yes, the ECN related issue is resolved. 

What I don't know if it is resolved fully is the implementation requirements is that a sender MUST be capable of handling an ACK frame with Largest Acknowledged that is smaller than highest received? From my perspective there are good and valid arguments why this may be required, however I think consensus needs to be established on 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/2205#issuecomment-451961932

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email