Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 12 February 2020 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B441200C1 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:06:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZefDYF9MsQZN for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71669120089 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:06:13 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581483974; bh=pVBRoFdj5bsjjpOu7ohITHZDnJXb19jdC7FrfkE4voY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=nWVttbcHORZl7l/QA8Lmz5Hh/wYTETCNVIxM7V1rvZTW13dpywjQHg3ZSyTYFQ8yv lEgv1pnv4bEC253lMEcOWCmfvmDJof/jqU3OSiSIctYT2xZgCy3RIFrdf5MNlPR6O7 JXH+8+Ronba1pYha4A09UJSRhz4R8la92FThKax4=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4387c5f01d5_9be3f87924cd96c32065d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 05:06:18 -0000

I don't follow that argument.

There's a simpler one: if sending packets causes congestion such that loss (or ECN-CE marking) occurs, then ignoring that signal means that you will likely create more congestion.

I don't see how the relationship to inbound packets is relevant here.  There are many ways in which the rate of outbound packets might be determined by inbound packets.  Servers answers requests, after all.  And if ACK-only packets are the dominant use of a link, then deliberately ignoring signals from them likely only drives send rates up to unsustainable levels; and that's on top of not counting those packets toward limits (something that is necessary).

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: