Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Out of order relative to other ack-eliciting packets (#4000)

Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com> Fri, 11 September 2020 15:51 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 C791C3A12E7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 uzlLSsHVCMGb for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54AB53A12E6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f144ac1.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f144ac1.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AFC34056D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1599839485; bh=12MsAlsUV9ZwgvTyinjNijjjWTZ3sq1qOnx3JKhXPmA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=fq9EDbUAdnKFTWvHjgOXgzUMoemRoG0C4PS9n5QAtX5wALmTOSoPum/Q3d19rBHGh OTwmFVlVGB9UyJU5KH5xkfJRLQjGCp2LbvGVyQaWU01eOr8+4aKUgBPSfPuORK1JZX Et3VAXi2oVgG3SBA9tfjvjC23XNF/QFzD/p23b8U=
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:51:25 -0700
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3RDOK7KNX57AEABPV5M5673EVBNHHCRBJDQE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000/review/486925361@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4000@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Out of order relative to other ack-eliciting packets (#4000)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f5b9cfd79898_20a219f02005c3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: dtikhonov
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/f_JJf8umlPvDtNJw9DFRXgB0wlM>
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: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:51:29 -0000

@dtikhonov commented on this pull request.



> @@ -3557,12 +3550,15 @@ which could prevent the connection from ever becoming idle.  Non-ack-eliciting
 packets are eventually acknowledged when the endpoint sends an ACK frame in
 response to other events.
 
-In order to assist loss detection at the sender, an endpoint SHOULD send an ACK
-frame immediately on receiving an ack-eliciting packet that is out of order. The
-endpoint SHOULD NOT continue sending ACK frames immediately unless more
-ack-eliciting packets are received out of order.  If every subsequent
-ack-eliciting packet arrives out of order, then an ACK frame SHOULD be sent
-immediately for every received ack-eliciting packet.
+In order to assist loss detection at the sender, an endpoint SHOULD generate
+and send an ACK frame without delay when it receives an ack-eliciting packet
+either:
+
+* when the received packet has a packet number less than another ack-eliciting
+  packet that has been received, or
+* when the packet has a packet number larger than the highest-numbered
+  ack-eliciting packet that has been received and there are missing packets

This wording strikes me as odd.  A receiver does not know whether there are _missing packets_.  We should simply state that there is a gap in the packet numbers.

-- 
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/4000#pullrequestreview-486925361