Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What if an ACK frame doesn't fit in a packet (#3312)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 12:59 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 79ED83A0437 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_24=1.618, 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 uIzivyJSfHeD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B7193A041D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.62]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F766E130F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1584017946; bh=LcBSsWozcUxjQMP4c+Q1ekPI3QiEqn3BqE75W6G5cAc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TMkYDfUeBpwsPyoXxIz7XPGCkBmjS/7GSNkV7NSkrfo80Qd5OKO0OFgqQNT3JZ0nx 92FLL7bB9WwVL7jnJbov9Khjrrr7Epdwb1OgZyDdrsOKay6PFYMJzI0/CVzWPNWuFZ LTb1lXy5+v4K7e0qjqKbrg3zvj1zMkv7+f/9IVXM=
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:59:06 -0700
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZBH5SYDONUJ6TUFZ54OYJRVEVBNHHCAZAEGY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3312/review/373531152@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3312@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3312@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What if an ACK frame doesn't fit in a packet (#3312)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e6a321a23881_591a3fd6c4ecd9686825c"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/QNmjfnNfT6cEwbUUL_dejMVZ-tA>
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:59:08 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



> @@ -3182,7 +3182,9 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  An ACK frame is expected
+to fit within a single QUIC packet.  If it does not, then older ranges
+(those with the smallest packet numbers) are omitted.
 

"are omitted" is vague. Does this mean a receiver can conclude non-receipt of any packet number higher than the oldest in an ACK frame. If so, the wording probably should be "MUST be omitted".

-- 
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/3312#pullrequestreview-373531152