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

[Igor Lubashev <[e-mail]>]

igorlord commented on this pull request.



>  To limit ACK Ranges (see {{ack-ranges}}) to those that have not yet been
 received by the sender, the receiver SHOULD track which ACK frames have been
 acknowledged by its peer. The receiver SHOULD exclude already acknowledged
 packets from future ACK frames whenever these packets would unnecessarily
-contribute to the ACK frame size.
-
-Because ACK frames are not sent in response to ACK-only packets, a receiver that
-is only sending ACK frames will only receive acknowledgements for its packets if
-the sender includes them in packets with non-ACK frames.  A sender SHOULD bundle
-ACK frames with other frames when possible.
+contribute to the ACK frame size.  When the receiver is only sending
+non-ACK-eliciting packets, it can bundle a PING with a fraction of them, such

You are correct. I remember we had a discussion about doing so, but I also do not see it landing anywhere.  So this PING as an example of what can be done sounds good.  But "MUST NOT bundle a PING" in the following sentence looks like normative language, and PING is not longer just an example there.

Maybe you want to write: "MUST NOT make every otherwise non-ACK-eliciting packet ACK-eliciting, in order to ..." or "MUST NOT add an ACK-eliciting frame to every otherwise non-ACK-eliciting packet, in order 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#discussion_r299100230