IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move text on infinite ACK loops (#4859)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Thu, 01 April 2021 03:50 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 1D6953A3F2A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.502 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 olXu2zTO-5XN for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 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 87E0C3A3F28 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-6fa1679.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.202.62]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4EA6B52005B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1617249039; bh=bX3xqG6M6PlU71KsjTE42B4foyLl7Kg5KC/M2xQyXIo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ZgMSDeilYUZZ8R2eBl4dbAvQZ1V8AgOVVBdTltUOmI1IB7oejyBKenPvZn1Ir2wY1 6k1ofsYA4ZAiHaRZfofy/jJuixVAPS2t/uh2AS9KL+Mea4AJOFOVvebyqmLADxnfV1 HGqLPgfpCET0yQQlDz/2KZk/2618JVbKWB3szs+o=
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:50:39 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYKJNS666LHVEBIUGF6OESA7EVBNHHDEY7AXM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4859/review/625879692@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4859@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4859@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Move text on infinite ACK loops (#4859)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_6065430f4bb2b_16cf181071985"; 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/ZhoeMR8Em818Yy9nSAaVrbZCEpQ>
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: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 03:50:42 -0000

@ianswett approved this pull request.

LG, one possible suggestion to a sentence I've been confused by before.

> +when there are new ack-eliciting packets to acknowledge.  When only
+non-ack-eliciting packets need to be acknowledged, an endpoint MAY wait until an
+ack-eliciting packet has been received to include an ACK frame with outgoing
+frames.

This is pre-existing, but it always takes me a few tries understand the intent of this MAY, so here's a small suggestion which I believe clarifies it.

```suggestion
when there are new ack-eliciting packets to acknowledge.  When only
non-ack-eliciting packets need to be acknowledged, an endpoint MAY
choose to not send an ACK frame with outgoing frames until an
ack-eliciting packet has been received.
```

-- 
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/4859#pullrequestreview-625879692

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email