Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an ACK (#3047)

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 03 December 2019 03:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9C012010D for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 19:18:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 cJEzR5obWJWy for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 19:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76AF11200D5 for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 19:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 19:18:11 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1575343091; bh=nm0SQUoNN8gbz7Cstv2A9eRtetDv2tJHDOsyxfGz/m8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=rQOe588PElGmkOdI6eDh6jtdd+NND4UayaZekW+0sHtEx+mTY7IiT6ACpDggBz5UX 3StQUZph93CB372OnCg07CPcLUCKi8vmlJNFC9UwK6ukWzLJmFgQqWKy3p2kjJDEQm 7N7ybZpAw0xHHoB+yhFWZclSxzADqMijE2RV35j0=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an ACK (#3047)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5de5d3f3ab1e2_1a063fa6306cd96c174577"; 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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 03:18:14 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

Would it fair up-level and ask whether the ACK handler should trigger any sending?  I realize that the disagreement appears to be about whether this is advocating for a burst send, but it seems to me that the bigger question is where to attach sending logic to the pseudocode.

>    newly_acked_packets = DetermineNewlyAckedPackets(ack, pn_space)
+  // Nothing to do if there are no newly acked packets.

This change looks like a regression, or it is as at least unrelated: the intent before was to comment about the call to `DetermineNewlyAckedPackets()` and the use of the returned value.  I think that's still the right way to frame this.

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