Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What if an ACK frame doesn't fit in a packet (#3312)

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Tue, 07 January 2020 20:35 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 C6405120077 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 12:35:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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: 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 YQNUQrwzsJhC for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 12:35:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31A85120025 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 12:35:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-d31a065.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d31a065.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E2D960655 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 12:35:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1578429302; bh=lsD+RVwwkfSaS7uKihfQ4dAOtqFqO8XEYkY9L5cMZqw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=eTg25tHav2KRiTezZ2b93iLfcxJ5ndp/RbtiCf9X0eSe3VP3AM9k5ijJaL+RAQnF3 BFu4uECDsBUDR21tQ/5eLizkTO4EDA0P9FZddesHG6vlurvzEDPP6iMDLfAoOqcZXF v83wnaiiy91nxvr5jCqvClJ7mTiFt0h8qrwdC2SQ=
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 12:35:02 -0800
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5XCM7L3OB6ALK3NRN4EIO7NEVBNHHCAZAEGY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3312/review/339487828@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3312@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3312@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What if an ACK frame doesn't fit in a packet (#3312)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e14eb7698bd6_75393fb3632cd96c455c2"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/hcwcgDV2YHfHbHj538wm908vWSk>
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: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 20:35:07 -0000

janaiyengar approved this pull request.

A few suggestions

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame

```suggestion
spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  The ACK frame is expected
```

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame
+will be much smaller than a QUIC packet.  However, if the entire ACK frame

```suggestion
to fit within a single QUIC packet.  If it does not, then older ranges
```

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame
+will be much smaller than a QUIC packet.  However, if the entire ACK frame
+does not fit into a single QUIC packet, older ranges (that is, those with the

```suggestion
(those with the smallest packet numbers) are omitted.
```

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame
+will be much smaller than a QUIC packet.  However, if the entire ACK frame
+does not fit into a single QUIC packet, older ranges (that is, those with the
+smallest packet numbers) SHOULD be omitted.

```suggestion
```

-- 
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/3312#pullrequestreview-339487828