Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packet implicity ACK it (#698)
martinduke <notifications@github.com> Wed, 06 September 2017 21:13 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 819A6132A81 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.396 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, 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 6zaJeceWV3hL for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext3.iad.github.net [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC93132A05 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 14:13:38 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1504732418; bh=C1A0nayfQNvJVCX/SeJfy/Ku2L+mFCfgQwAWAHjuj9s=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=exuM+dfusI/RLpCIYAoGYJKIOzRPTWOSXLcM114bHT2mhzh6rPzGpochY8bLB4Zy3 aPwlwUfrzShb+yhIYgc07pbQOoJd76MK2OK2REgqrwUQHyCYlWNwsCX36fyqjF+rQg IbcIDzBU3p8ZHYzW/CCBanxviW4sOtk2nCFEWVWE=
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab1dba159bb57b5d61af2b075cd630effd2d064e9892cf0000000115c8270292a169ce0ea843fe@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698/327614368@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/698@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packet implicity ACK it (#698)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_59b06502d5d4_3a4c3f804b305c2c111643"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
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/Pzz-Xoq43ILwgoLbaoWv-XcVx1U>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 21:13:40 -0000
I'm not suggesting that we get rid of ack blocks. But if recommend that people send timestamps once, making them also send an ack block in that frame is perverse. It is very easy for a receiver to cross off a packet if it sees either one. Making it check for both also makes things harder. When the timestamp is lost, I am all for the retransmission including just ack blocks. -- 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/698#issuecomment-327614368
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a packe… Subodh Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… Subodh Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… MikkelFJ
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Does a timestamp for a p… Martin Thomson