IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow removal of ACK blocks that are in flight (#917)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Sun, 12 November 2017 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 6C041126B71 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:53:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 6d2hB_dzDRcW for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o8.sgmail.github.com (o8.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 204CE124F57 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:53:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=Y+zecVBPZwH/BxmXUsWbioJKKEw=; b=g3IQaS6cz+6IO4N+ tMO3M92RPINt8G64CFCYVcWCc3CqhKGAoCHuLfvAn9lIqoNIcvinKkn8LSG3blb2 qAwv6/RaHNQgZ9zGM/qCvWhmysYG6EXYUsIKsXc2drUmM44Tk47xEeZU8G9LovBW 46rfccw6XQry28cVKPYNZPVeSyE=
Received: by filter0566p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0566p1las1-29320-5A08DEE8-1A 2017-11-12 23:53:12.680929166 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0006p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id rCsy1zNlTNGk0i16PqTjNQ for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:53:12.630 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:53:12 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab508bab1d97ff9d66d2fa57179a393aae23b6d57492cf000000011620a0e892a169ce1048c429@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/917/343779225@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/917@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/917@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow removal of ACK blocks that are in flight (#917)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5a08dee884089_74813f8c8a1e4f282010616"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
tracking:
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3BXcVOBcxKWKDY90GAfq1wZwVSGTkWBX+PDS 5OrLA94MfigLDjzH900kdYbg4Vyi16pw+410UPmdhoz4xJ1eKAoVa5uObQXIwL+WQUFcy6skviV9zi qya/ANVceGCXiny0+90fr/qi8bTLtL0p/S+Qz09/z4pofAg96qMV/0tWcnHGT5gjkY2qJaCuHYknJa A=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/haDVXqRkQEEjGcVXbogoLnMZa88>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:53:15 -0000

It seems like we're talking about different cases, though.  Or you're using examples that seem to argue the other way.

As @mikkelfj describes, if you have too many ACK blocks (e.g. because that section experienced loss/delays and has many gaps), you might choose to omit some older blocks from your ACK frame.  But once packets arrive and the contiguous blocks become larger, you can resume ACKing them because you have fewer blocks to express.

Basically, I see the argument against simply forgetting packets that haven't been ACK-of-ACK'd yet; you're essentially fabricating loss.  But it seems like it's a perfectly valid thing to selectively include a subset of the packets you know about in your ACK frame if size is an issue.

-- 
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/issues/917#issuecomment-343779225

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status