Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an ACK (#3047)
Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 03 December 2019 03:18 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 BC9C012010D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 19:18:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 cJEzR5obWJWy for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 19:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76AF11200D5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; 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; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYPJQI7EAOS3H7YVD536MDHHEVBNHHB2737AM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047/review/325874270@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/VjvxfZzL-dmqgI2xXQm5tYXn8_8>
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: 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: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3047#pullrequestreview-325874270
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an ACK … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … martinduke
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … Jana Iyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send after receiving an … ianswett