Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move out-of-order packets definition (#3369)

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 20 January 2020 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC1E120128 for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:59 -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 FYZUheiwhXfq for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93E4312011D for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C381C0570 for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1579562936; bh=HjFyhTEGlGXWzIpPgGSHEDNcgWaRG94Hf2vaPtqiYX8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hIWv/GyVlTj4PqWDDLpGGuRJ6GNGjlVJvBQS35beOu4BdT3ZKydgCrpHd34wm9NZX HBXepJpaKVaLLKDlERdN7qib1Nsvw7KmqT2QpCRWCQVdjWuVYILiYBQifjnK+ZjZOu 1nt0cjfXKOCyBDSwST7+olvU0oXFnp73g6l0sFY4=
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:56 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3369/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move out-of-order packets definition (#3369)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e2637b88674e_75513fe3698cd96c19678f"; 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
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: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 23:29:00 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.

Thank you for working on this.

> @@ -196,6 +196,12 @@ Ack-eliciting Packet:
   CONNECTION_CLOSE. These cause a recipient to send an acknowledgment (see
+Out-of-order Packets:
+: Packets that do not increase the largest received packet number for its
+  packet number space by exactly one. Packets arrive out of order
+  when earlier packets are lost or delayed.

Do we need to point out that an endpoint also might skip a packet number intentionally, as suggested in [section 21.3](

Or maybe we should state in that section that skipping packet numbers too frequently would lead to an unnecessarily large number of ACK packets being sent in response.

Not that I have a strong opinion here, but I just wanted to make sure we'd be fine with what we'd have.

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