IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify ACK of ACKs and bundling a PING (#2794)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 14:23 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 E48F312015B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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 bKz9n77zSHlv for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00C0D120074 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:23:42 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1561386222; bh=khryAATVx4dBx/Wc5jxTTbi18nrO1zx0jcoqmAuSaL4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Ye607FodxL5vJzFDSKA8tpzUW2XkVhQ64DrgI2f+1wQMUvXnBKbdpZ4Qtw5dhaipY GKhr0JDJCaJ7ffRQN9Gj8VBoQT9z/AStHyu2f8/1BVZQ958L7Dlf3Oqv3XvgHJ1cHk E/O2uQzxQONImwybmQEgq/XYVHNIZSBw77khdadM=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYNOVNTSH56O7MP35V3DYHW5EVBNHHBWNLZWA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2794/review/253446134@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2794@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2794@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify ACK of ACKs and bundling a PING (#2794)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d10dceeab875_5c053fb1b88cd968696869"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/ZbAalwBDD41I8XoNLkrcTC6U79Y>
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, 24 Jun 2019 14:23:46 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2860,12 +2860,13 @@ valid frames? -->
 ### Sending ACK Frames
 
 An endpoint MUST NOT send more than one packet containing only an ACK frame per
-received packet that contains frames other than ACK and PADDING frames.
-An endpoint MUST NOT send a packet containing only an ACK frame in response
-to a packet containing only ACK or PADDING frames, even if there are packet
-gaps which precede the received packet. This prevents an indefinite feedback
-loop of ACKs. The endpoint MUST however acknowledge packets containing only
-ACK or PADDING frames when sending ACK frames in response to other packets.
+received ACK-eliciting packet(one containing frames other than ACK and/or
+PADDING).  An endpoint MUST NOT send a packet containing only an ACK frame in

I'm not sure that change is correct.  ACK only packets don't count towards congestion control, so they're somewhat special.  I'd be curious to have @janaiyengar opinion on this.

-- 
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/2794#discussion_r296748972

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email