From nobody Fri Sep 11 08:51:31 2020 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:51:29 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5f5b9cfd79898_20a219f02005c3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit @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 ----==_mimepart_5f5b9cfd79898_20a219f02005c3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

@dtikhonov commented on this pull request.

In draft-ietf-quic-transport.md:

> @@ -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, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

----==_mimepart_5f5b9cfd79898_20a219f02005c3--