Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Out of order relative to other ack-eliciting packets (#4000)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Mon, 17 August 2020 15:54 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 2242E3A11AA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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_20=1.546, 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 6pkBhcjijiZn for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B105A3A11A1 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.62]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3125C0E30 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1597679679; bh=DLGaiAgoHBVsFGnVQsuovwqFpDa92mGVzMEipZQSHes=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=x6/sAYzE4NRSzSRZgClBCbbmxjtVpDA4SHykYZvMsra6HPu4UsWHE4LYV5msK2BQg MGH5Q/2+1tNVA7GUBwDQDQeW3LVlpTlMUO3XMfMrsTlWM0ozrU4djLPprVuM9tcIXT oBIdLgG1nyFibRcR1f/EK0hHcvBQGsN+PynYv25s=
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:54:39 -0700
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4W75E77KI4P6ZSGTF5I2ET7EVBNHHCRBJDQE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000/c674962941@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Out of order relative to other ack-eliciting packets (#4000)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f3aa83fcadeb_2b0219641491bb"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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/Z6FacEx5ZQugKjoluqYOtZbORaQ>
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, 17 Aug 2020 15:54:42 -0000

> > What are the downsides of not doing this and generally having logic that triggers an immediate ACK if any out-of-order packet is received?
> 
> @nibanks, if I'm understanding correctly, the concern is that an implementation that sends ACK-only packets immediately but paces others will routinely have ACK-only packets skipping ahead of ACK-eliciting packets. If you react to all reordering, you'll send a lot of unneeded immediate ACKs when interacting with such an implementation.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.

-- 
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/4000#issuecomment-674962941