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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 20 January 2020 23:28 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 4BC1E120128 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:59 -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 FYZUheiwhXfq for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93E4312011D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C381C0570 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:28:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2SQL6SIL4MCNRBDPN4GNVDREVBNHHCB3RRUE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3369/review/345570841@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3369@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3369@github.com>
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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/XxoXylsCNvZ0Fme6Szd6diF0m7s>
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, 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
   {{sending-acknowledgements}}).
 
+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](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#name-optimistic-ack-attack)?

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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3369#pullrequestreview-345570841