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

[MikkelFJ <[e-mail]>]

mikkelfj 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

What if change the requirement to simply not ACK'ing ACK's too often. That would also do away with PING feedback loops. It seems that we are just moving the problem.

-- 
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_r299326239