Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Send an immediate ACK (#2025)

[martinduke <[e-mail]>]

martinduke commented on this pull request.

I am not sure where this stack of SHOULDs leaves us.

There is one MUST, which is that we MUST ack within max_ack_delay.

Beyond that, receivers:
SHOULD NOT ack every packet
SHOULD ack every other packet.
SHOULD immediately ack if OOO
MAY immediately ack subsequent packets, but
SHOULD NOT do it for a whole RTT.

The MAY seems a little redundant; it is clearly authorized by the lack of any MUSTs. I think you are trying to say "receivers SHOULD immediately ack an OOO packet and the next few packets after that to improve the chance of delivery". Maybe just say that?



>  
 Out-of-order packets SHOULD be acknowledged more quickly, in order to accelerate
 loss recovery.  The receiver SHOULD send an immediate ACK when it receives a new
-packet which is not one greater than the largest received packet number.
+packet which is not the next expected one. That is, its packet number is not one
+greater than the largest received packet number.  A receiver MAY immediately
+ack subsequent packets after first receiving a packet out of order. A receiver
+SHOULD NOT send an immediate ACK any time there is a gap in the ACK frame,

the ACK frame it is sending, or the ACK it is receiving? I think you mean the ACK frame it's sending, but it took me a couple of readings to get it.

-- 
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/2025#pullrequestreview-192783368