Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST ACK each ack-eliciting packet once (#3092)

MikkelFJ <> Sun, 20 October 2019 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539FD120086 for <>; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 03:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 GYQjsMQP0iQS for <>; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 03:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A547212003E for <>; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 03:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 03:27:27 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1571567247; bh=haP8xhoCGUZIf+mbY6LW1PtJV76Fb2gE7aGYi7TIwMI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SKs43se7qIlJKe49vA7yvxl1ECVo2GauPxAUqaPqN+PCVIaJVSO5+UtIC1kotKyCK BqsYhZmd/Zr5b7UO7735TFESSdmnHUfOrd6gYrfTuFrnUWQCaXuBstrkT7K8aiQUtF g7mvxwvkRETEE6YV1Oxyo6gBCGwSni8m2eHqPhsQ=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3092/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] MUST ACK each ack-eliciting packet once (#3092)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dac368fa63b4_70be3ff2dc8cd96c2919a0"; 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
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: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 10:27:30 -0000

Also, when ACKs packets don't fit in packets, this would also hold for ACK'ing ack-eliciting packets. So you could end up having to not ACK'ing some packets and induce loss. Requiring an ACK for all packets would be problematic. I'm not sure we want that. The result could be very hard to implement while the practical benefit would be small: sending multiple ACK packets with different content due to overflow.

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