Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK generation recommendation (#3304)

mjoras <> Wed, 18 December 2019 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCA6120043 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:06:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlMNUTWtIi6b for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:06:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D4AA120018 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5902A8C06C8 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:06:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1576631168; bh=9SFL1yoD6lnmOMmdOGSDI8l1l8UffiWb7uWXsXC4XG0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TIeZcV+f+VnBJ6D02Uz9IT6yg2kW2r4ZdW/w08D6at1lNKpI+rztltYgfssmSnm1H 0mNvYjh/BgBC5dVd8QVsLc0Y9N318XUX1j3myznEz/fhgygd4u/39/BalPRSx20VKw hsJWMiw05A5uwFN25PVfG9Pmgeo3n5Wy56HUuykU=
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:06:08 -0800
From: mjoras <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3304/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] ACK generation recommendation (#3304)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5df97b8049f9f_680d3f81776cd968981ce"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mjoras
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 01:06:11 -0000

> @mjoras: I'm very sympathetic to yours (and Ian's) thinking. That said, we do have a recommendation in the draft right now, which is that a receiver SHOULD ack every other packet. To your point about aging: that arguably has not aged well for TCP, but we're recommending it here. I am now wondering if should drop that SHOULD as well and make a weaker recommendation, noting that there are tradeoffs here.

@janaiyengar I would be supportive of dropping the SHOULD and having a brief text discussing the tradeoffs involved, possibly at least mentioning the 100-10-1/4RTT recommendation, or however you'd like to refer to it.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: