Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of ACK advice too strong (#2199)
ekr <notifications@github.com> Mon, 17 December 2018 04:10 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 73B1C1200D7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:10:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 Pd-rzBtyi5hz for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35E481286E7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:10:40 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1545019840; bh=mnUBeBd6b8mJDkcdEhm9BKMDb42ALj1E+qF+pEITZBY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Usjg283m7mF53mCwrx0HdJmEs6NO8xGItJqG753ueua4CKvYwTgxTlJ7m+fORZGmK X4pHMqQA9jRRng43z1OYANfhfewDrN0ltQWigzNIsOkmMnj7Yq1yzS80enJADwCUtb Agng9aYfQ1Xkdw22u8jqK4tyZ5QYuEG0nj96TC84=
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abb27c4fc8f1b49c9d2d4f0492c6c0d8ab6357657b92cf00000001182ee3c092a169ce17567c54@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2199/447717254@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2199@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2199@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of ACK advice too strong (#2199)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1721c03e04f_23293fde630d45b8534143"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/aOaZ0whvon4NCSuaotMdK5FoC8Y>
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 Dec 2018 04:10:43 -0000
Maybe "Endpoints SHOULD not acknowledge packets for which it has already received acknowledgement of acknowledgements, except where this would create unnecessary gaps in the encoded ACK frame." Not ideal, I know/ On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> wrote: > From @ekr <https://github.com/ekr>: > > Once an ACK frame has been acknowledged, the packets it acknowledges > SHOULD NOT be acknowledged again. > Suppose that I receive 1 3 5, and I ack these, and that ACK is acked. I > then receive 2, 4, 6. This advice would have me send an ACK frame with > three ranges, whereas I could send one range. > > I think that the advice here is that ranges are dropped when all ACKs for > all packets in that range have been acknowledged. Or something along those > lines. > > Maybe: > > An endpoint SHOULD omit an ACK Range if it has received an acknowledgment > for its acknowledgments of all packets in that range. > > Though that seems clumsy. Better words would be appreciated. > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2199>, or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABD1oUE3NRmKfS48eS7GpOn6ovYIkjapks5u5w1-gaJpZM4ZVngK> > . > -- 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/issues/2199#issuecomment-447717254
- [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of ACK advice too strong… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of ACK advice too st… ekr
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of ACK advice too st… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of ACK advice too st… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK of ACK advice too st… Martin Thomson