IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Suggest endpoints may recognize acks after loss is declared (#3956)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 01:52 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 1C9643A15E4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 NnkTh7cIG8nu for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ED2D3A15E0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f1f7af9.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f1f7af9.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.111.13]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B547A520EC1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595814730; bh=TEa+pBpeCWiPmexzTmZiJmsWmWhok6LFCmbUgSt8hyA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=In3Y1ikH0EWe6SNDXgmRPTSReG7VJgzsLB5F/WneKPPgZADzCHeDPE8miKEWN43N/ VLV8g/AgzWnTZlIBPwO5PflChccIrEpX3n77Q3acfqn5dFfdRmW4WZv4FCPcJqC/AV CW7c0tMzOSZYS/RtHWxlcnhWOZ7Bow94w81al2s0=
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:52:10 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4BLJGER7NDBRNBMF55FIKEVEVBNHHCPIHZLY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3956/664077868@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3956@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3956@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Suggest endpoints may recognize acks after loss is declared (#3956)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f1e334aa5c75_67863f8e100cd96419196e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/XObZUBPHp4iqPV78LnXClQwt9Qc>
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 01:52:13 -0000

@tatsuhiro-t Thank you for pointing that out. I missed that.

I tend to think that we should adopt #3957. As stated in my original comment, handling of late acks is the prerequisite of many of the normative requirements that exist in the recovery draft. Therefore, it is better to have a normative requirement for handling of late acks.

-- 
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/issues/3956#issuecomment-664077868

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status