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

[Igor Lubashev <[e-mail]>]

igorlord commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2859,13 +2859,16 @@ 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.
+Packets containing only ACK frames are not congestion controlled, so there are
+limits on how frequently they can be sent.  An endpoint MUST NOT send more than
+one packet containing only an ACK frame per 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 response to a non-ACK-eliciting

So if the stack _really_ wants to ACK some non-ACK-eliciting packet, ACK+PING is ok?  And if ACK+PING is not ok, then ACK+MAX_DATA(repeat latest value) is ok?

My point is that maybe this MUST ought to be replaced with a SHOULD to avoid people having to play these games, when they really want to do so.  (SHOULD still means do it unless you have a great reason not to.)

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-256150592