Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

Marten Seemann <> Wed, 12 February 2020 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915D5120877 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:21:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VyqnKdLJQovb for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2197A120879 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75809660329 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:21:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1581488490; bh=F7i1lhCK8j2AekFEZeHzCc4I41MeXJdwhl7SoPW9qAo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=XrBTdIGD+oPJzSVvE9GlRWvnpdj2o5mr0qbUR1fiLhbo4BQiPQXpZsA+FKtFWqF5i BxntcpMPNtwREk8PgGUdDv+WS+Yty34KrNLjrWminOjghxOwplKtj1sb0p95DRTJVc sZu+CCqkI4W2zyAml20POL2Ah06q2lbFIjSuEnNI=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:21:30 -0800
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e43996a65955_7f153f8a928cd96054422"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 06:21:39 -0000

> Using the loss of ACK-only packets without controlling the send-rate of ACK-only packets based on their loss essentially means that we are going to prioritize emission of ACKs above data. This would be a departure from the per-direction CC design that we have now.

Can't find the text right now, but I thought that ack-only packets are not blocked by the congestion controller. At least that's what I implemented in quic-go.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: